瑜伽師地論白話全本 · 冊4

有尋有伺等三地 · 7 單元 · 第 4／15 冊 · 冊目次

有尋有伺等三地 · 界施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Elements

白話Vernacular

有尋有伺、無尋唯伺、無尋無伺這三地，總共用五道門來建立（界、相、如理作意、不如理作意、雜染等起）。這一篇是第一道門「界施設建立」，底下又分八項來說：數、處、有情的身量、有情的壽量、有情的受用、生、自體、因緣果。

開頭：三地、五門、界的八項建立

什麼叫有尋有伺地？什麼叫無尋唯伺地？什麼叫無尋無伺地？（「尋」是粗的思量，「伺」是細的伺察。）總的提綱說：界、相、如理、不如理，最後是雜染等起。這三地，大致用五道門來建立：第一界、第二相、第三如理作意、第四不如理作意、第五雜染等起。

什麼叫「界施設建立」？分項的提綱說：數、處、量、壽、受用、生、自體、因緣果。要知道，界的建立分八項：第一講「數」（界有幾類）、第二講「處」（住處）、第三講有情的身量、第四講有情的壽量、第五講有情的受用、第六講「生」、第七講「自體」、第八講「因緣果」。

一、數建立（界分幾類·三地怎麼分）

什麼叫「數」的建立？大致分三類界：欲界、色界、無色界——這三類合稱「墮攝界」（落在三界之內的）。不落在三界之內的（叫「非墮攝界」），是指通往出離的方便道、身見滅盡的境界（薩迦耶滅），以及沒有戲論的無漏界。

在這三界裡怎麼分三地？欲界，加上色界的初靜慮——但要除開「靜慮中間」那一段，不管是入定還是受生在那裡——這一片叫「有尋有伺地」（又有尋又有伺）。那「靜慮中間」（在初、二禪之間的一層），不管入定或受生，叫「無尋唯伺地」（沒有尋、只剩伺）；有人修成這一層，就能當大梵天。從第二靜慮往上，其餘的色界和整個無色界，叫「無尋無伺地」（尋伺都沒有了）。

要注意：這裡說「無尋無伺」，是就「已經離了尋伺的貪欲」這個道理講的，並不是單看「尋伺有沒有在活動」。為什麼這麼說？因為還沒離欲界貪的人，有時靠著教導、作意的不同，也會有「無尋無伺」的念頭冒出來；而已經離了尋伺貪的人，有時也還有尋伺在活動（比方剛出定、或是生到那一層的人）。另外，如果是無漏的有為定所攝的初靜慮，也算「有尋有伺地」——因為它是依著「尋伺所緣的法」、緣真如為對象而入這個定，並不是靠分別在活動。其餘的道理跟前面一樣。

二、處所建立（欲界三十六處·色界十八處·無色界四處）

接著講住處。欲界裡有三十六個住處。先是八個大地獄（那落迦就是地獄）：第一等活、第二黑繩、第三眾合、第四號叫、第五大號叫、第六燒熱、第七極燒熱、第八無間；這幾個大地獄，每個寬十千踰繕那（踰繕那是古印度的長度單位，約合幾十里）。此外還有八個寒冰地獄：第一皰、第二皰裂、第三𠿒哳詀、第四郝郝凡、第五虎虎凡、第六青蓮、第七紅蓮、第八大紅蓮。從地面往下三萬二千踰繕那，到等活地獄；再隔四千踰繕那，有其餘的地獄。像等活大地獄這樣排，第一個寒冰地獄也這樣；再隔兩千踰繕那，有其餘的地獄。另外還有餓鬼的住處、阿修羅（非天）的住處（畜生則跟人、天住在一起，所以不另立住處）。還有四大洲（前面講過），和八個中洲。欲界天有六層：第一四大王眾天、第二三十三天、第三時分天（夜摩天）、第四知足天（兜率天）、第五樂化天、第六他化自在天；另外有個摩羅天宮，算在他化自在天裡，不過位置更高。還有「獨一地獄」和「近邊地獄」，其實就附在大地獄和寒冰地獄旁邊，因為靠得近，所以不另立住處。又在人間，也找得到一小部分「獨一地獄」，像尊者取菉豆子說的：「我看見許多眾生，燃燒、極燃燒、處處燃燒，整個成了一團火。」以上這三十六處，總名叫欲界。

色界有十八個住處：梵眾天、梵前益天、大梵天（這三層是用下、中、上品的功夫熏修初靜慮而生的）；少光天、無量光天、極淨光天（這三層是下中上品熏修第二靜慮而生）；少淨天、無量淨天、遍淨天（這三層是下中上品熏修第三靜慮而生）；無雲天、福生天、廣果天（這三層是下中上品熏修第四靜慮而生，「無想天」就附在廣果天裡，不另立住處）。另外還有聖者專住、凡夫不共的「五淨居天」：無煩、無熱、善現、善見、色究竟（這是用下、中、上、上勝、上極五品交雜熏修第四靜慮而生的）。再上去，還有超過淨居天的「大自在住處」，是十地菩薩極力熏修第十地才生得進去的。無色界有四個處所，或者說根本沒有處所（因為無色，無方所可言）。

三、有情量建立（各道眾生的身量）

再講各道眾生身體的大小。南贍部洲（我們這個洲）的人身量不一定，有時高大、有時矮小，不過大致是自己手肘的三肘半。東毘提訶洲的人身量固定，也是自己手肘三肘半，但身子更高大；西瞿陀尼洲、北拘盧洲也一樣，一個比一個更高大。四大王眾天的身量是一拘盧舍的四分之一（拘盧舍是比踰繕那小的長度單位）；三十三天再增一足（一足是一個量級）；帝釋的身量是半拘盧舍；時分天也是半拘盧舍；再往上的欲界天，身量一層層各增一足。梵眾天身量半踰繕那，梵前益天一踰繕那，大梵天一踰繕那半，少光天兩踰繕那；再往上各層天身量一層比一層翻一倍，只有無雲天例外——要減去三踰繕那。大地獄眾生的身量不一定：造的惡業極重又增長的，感得的身形就特別大，否則就不會；大地獄這樣，寒冰地獄、獨一地獄、近邊地獄、畜生、餓鬼也都這樣。阿修羅的身量大小，跟三十三天差不多。要知道，無色界沒有色身，所以談不上身量。

四、有情壽建立（各道眾生的壽量）

再講壽命。南贍部洲人的壽命不一定。他們以三十個白天黑夜為一個月、十二個月為一年；有時壽命長到無量歲，有時八萬歲，有時又一路減到只剩十歲。東毘提訶洲人壽命固定兩百五十歲，西瞿陀尼洲固定五百歲，北拘盧洲固定一千歲。又：人間五十年，是四大王眾天的一天一夜；用這樣的日夜，三十日為一月、十二月為一年，這層天的眾生壽命五百歲。人間一百年，是三十三天的一天一夜；照樣算下去，這層天壽命一千歲。其餘各層往上，到他化自在天為止，日夜長度和壽量都各比前一層翻一倍。又：四大王眾天的整個壽量，才等於等活大地獄的一天一夜；照樣三十日為一月、十二月為一年，等活大地獄的眾生壽五百歲。就像用四大王眾天的壽量去折算等活地獄的壽量一樣，用三十三天的壽量折算黑繩地獄、用時分天折算眾合、用知足天折算號叫、用樂化天折算大號叫、用他化自在天折算燒熱地獄的壽量，都照這個方式。極燒熱大地獄的眾生壽半個中劫，無間大地獄的眾生壽一個中劫。阿修羅壽量跟三十三天一樣，畜生、餓鬼壽量不定。寒冰地獄按大地獄一個個對下來，壽量大約是前者的一半。近邊地獄、獨一地獄的眾生壽量不定。梵眾天壽二十個中劫（合一劫），梵前益天壽四十個中劫（一劫），大梵天壽六十個中劫（一劫），少光天壽八十個中劫（兩劫）；再往上各色界天壽量一層層翻一倍，只有無雲天例外，要減三劫。空無邊處壽二萬劫，識無邊處四萬劫，無所有處六萬劫，非想非非想處八萬劫。除了北拘盧洲（那裡壽量固定、不會夭折），其餘一切處都有「中途夭折」的事。又：人、餓鬼、畜生這幾道死後還留下屍體（餘滓身），天和地獄則是命一終、身體就跟著識一起沒了，不留屍體。

五、有情受用建立（受用苦樂·飲食·男女）

再講眾生「受用」什麼，大致三項：受用苦樂、受用飲食、受用男女。

（甲）受用苦樂

先講苦樂。地獄眾生多半受極重刑罰的苦，畜生多半受互相吞食的苦，餓鬼多半受極度飢渴的苦，人多半受缺這缺那、四處奔求的苦，天則多半受衰相現前、即將墜落的苦。

八個大地獄（熱地獄）——先說等活地獄，這裡的眾生多受極重刑罰之苦：他們常聚在一起，由於業力，種種害人的刑具一樣接一樣冒出來，彼此殘殺，痛到昏死、倒在地上。這時空中發出一個大聲音，喊道：「這些眾生可以再活過來！再活過來！」於是他們忽然又活了，又被前面說的那些刑具彼此殘殺。就這樣長時間受苦，一直到前世造的一切惡業還沒受完、還沒出離為止。所以這個地獄叫「等活」（活了又殺、殺了又活）。再說黑繩地獄，多受刑罰重苦：那裡的眾生多半被獄卒用黑繩在身上彈出墨線，或彈成四方、或八方、或種種圖樣，彈好了就照著線去鑿、去削、去砍、去剜。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世惡業未盡未出，所以叫「黑繩」。再說眾合地獄：那裡的眾生輾轉聚在一起時，就有獄卒驅趕他們進到兩座「鐵羊頭大山」之間，兩山一夾，全身每個孔竅都流血；除了鐵羊頭，還有兩鐵公羊頭、兩鐵馬頭、兩鐵象頭、兩鐵獅子頭、兩鐵虎頭，都一樣。再把人聚到大鐵槽裡壓，像壓甘蔗一樣，血就流出來；又聚起來，有大鐵山從上面壓下，把人壓倒在鐵地上，或砍或刺、或搗或撕，血就流出。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世惡業未盡未出，所以叫「眾合」。再說號叫地獄：那裡的眾生想找個房子躲，就走進一間大鐵屋，剛進去屋子就起火，燒得火舌亂竄，痛得忍不住，放聲號叫。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世惡業未盡未出，所以叫「號叫」。再說大號叫地獄，受的苦跟前面差別在：那房子像個密閉的胎胞（更出不來）。所以叫「大號叫」。再說燒熱地獄：獄卒把眾生放到燒得通紅、無量踰繕那大的鐵盤上，左右翻轉、裡外烤焦；又像烤魚一樣，用大鐵叉從下面穿進去、直透頭頂穿出，反覆烤，烤得全身毛孔和口裡都冒火；又把人放到滾燙的大鐵地上，或仰或覆，用燒紅的大鐵椎棒又打又搗、遍身打搗，打成一團肉泥。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世惡業未盡未出，所以叫「燒熱」。再說極燒熱地獄，差別在：用三股大熱鐵叉從下面穿入，直透兩肩和頭頂穿出，於是眼耳鼻口和各毛孔都噴出猛火；又用燒紅的大銅鐵片把全身整個裹住；又把人倒著扔進裝滿熱灰水的大鐵鍋裡煮，湯一滾，人就隨湯上下翻、一會兒浮一會兒沉，血肉皮脈全都煮爛、只剩一副骨架，隨即撈起放鐵地上，讓皮肉血脈重新長回原樣，再扔回鍋裡。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世惡業未盡未出，所以叫「極燒熱」。再說無間地獄，這裡的眾生一刻不停地受極重刑罰：從東方好幾百踰繕那燒紅的大鐵地上，有猛火騰著火舌撲過來，刺進眾生身上，穿皮入肉、斷筋破骨、再透進骨髓，像燒油燭一樣，整個身子都成了火團；東方這樣，南西北三方也一樣。於是這些眾生跟猛火攪在一起，只見四方火團撲來、火焰交雜、沒有一點空隙，受的苦痛也沒有一點空隙，只聽見被苦逼出的號叫聲，才知道裡面還有眾生活著。又用鐵畚箕裝滿燒紅的火炭去簸他；又放到熱鐵地上，叫他爬大熱鐵山，爬上又下、下了又上；從他口中拔出舌頭，用一百根鐵釘釘開撐平，像撐牛皮一樣不留一絲皺；又叫他仰臥熱鐵地上，用燒紅的鐵鉗把嘴撬開，把燒紅的大鐵丸塞進口中，當下燒了口和咽喉、燒穿內臟、從下面出來；又把熔化的銅汁灌進口裡，燒喉燒口、燒穿內臟、從下面流出；其餘的苦跟「極燒熱」說的一樣。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世惡業未盡未出，所以叫「無間」——多半是造了「五無間業」的人才生到這裡。以上只是粗略講幾樣明顯的刑具，並不是說這大地獄裡其餘種種苦具就沒有了。

近邊地獄（四個出園）——再講近邊地獄。每個大地獄都有四方、四岸、四門、鐵牆圍著；從四個門出去，每個門外有四個「出園」（一出去就受苦的園子）。第一個是「煻煨」（熱灰）齊膝：眾生出來找房子，走到這裡，腳一落下，皮肉和血立刻爛掉，腳一抬起又長回來。緊接著是「死屍糞泥」：眾生為了找房子從熱灰出來，慢慢走，陷進糞泥裡，連頭帶腳全沒入；糞泥裡又有許多蟲，名叫「孃矩吒」，穿皮入肉、斷筋破骨、取骨髓來吃。再接著是「利刀劍仰刃為路」（刀刃朝上鋪成的路）：眾生腳一落下，皮肉筋血全爛，腳一抬又長回原樣。再接著是「刃葉林」（葉子是刀刃的林子）：眾生為找房子走進去，剛坐到樹下，微風一起，刀葉就落下來，把全身關節砍斷，當下倒地；又有黑狗來拖咬脊背吃。再接著是「鐵設拉末梨林」（鐵刺樹林）：眾生爬上去，往上爬時所有刺尖都朝下、想下來時所有刺尖又朝上，刺穿全身關節；這時又有鐵嘴大烏鴉飛到他頭上、或停他肩上，挖眼珠吃。再接著是「廣大河」，河裡裝滿滾燙的灰水：眾生墮進去，像把豆子放進大鍋、底下燒猛火煮一樣，隨湯翻滾、團團打轉；河兩岸有獄卒手執棍索和大網排成一列，攔著不讓他出來，或用索子套、或用網撈，又放到熱鐵地上、仰面問他：「你現在想要什麼？」他答：「我什麼都不知道，只覺得餓得難受。」獄卒就用鐵鉗把嘴撬開，把燒紅的鐵丸塞進口中（其餘跟前面說的一樣）；他若答「我只覺得渴得難受」，獄卒就灌熔銅汁進口。就這樣長時間受苦，直到前世一切能感地獄的惡業未盡未出。（這裡的刀劍刃路、刃葉林、鐵刺樹林三樣算作一樣，所以總共是四個園。）

寒冰地獄——再講寒冰地獄受生的眾生，多受極重的寒苦。皰地獄裡受生的，被那地方極重又廣大的寒氣一觸，全身縮成一團，像長了瘡皰一樣，所以叫「皰」。皰裂地獄差別在：像瘡皰破了，膿血流出、瘡口卷皺，所以叫「皰裂」。𠿒哳詀、郝郝凡、虎虎凡這三個地獄，是按眾生凍出來的痛叫聲不同來取名的。青蓮地獄裡：被極重廣大的寒氣一觸，全身青瘀、皮膚裂開五六道，所以叫「青蓮」。紅蓮地獄差別在：青過了頭，顏色轉成紅赤、皮膚裂開十幾道甚至更多，所以叫「紅蓮」。大紅蓮地獄差別在：身上極紅、皮膚裂開上百道甚至更多，所以叫「大紅蓮」。

獨一·畜生·餓鬼——再講獨一地獄受生的眾生，各自被自己的業所感、多受種種大苦（像《吉祥問採菉豆子經》裡詳細說的），所以叫「獨一」。再講畜生道，彼此殘殺，弱的被強的殺害，因此受種種苦；又身不由己、被人驅使、常挨鞭打，還要給人、天當生活用具（被吃被用），因此受種種極重苦惱。再講餓鬼道，大致三種：第一種是被「外」障礙、吃不到，第二種是被「內」障礙、吃不下，第三種是飲食沒有障礙。被外障礙吃不到的：這種眾生因為前世慳貪到極點，生到餓鬼道，老是又飢又渴，皮肉血脈全枯乾像火炭，頭髮蓬亂、臉色焦黑、嘴唇乾裂，常用舌頭舔嘴舔臉，飢渴慌張、到處亂跑；可是每到一處泉水池塘，都有別的眾生手執刀杖和繩索排列守著，不讓他靠近，就算硬闖過去，那泉水也立刻變成膿血，自己也不想喝了。被內障礙吃不下的：這種眾生嘴小得像針孔、或像火炬，或脖子上長個大瘤、肚子卻很大，因此就算拿到了食物、沒人攔，自己也吞不下、喝不進。飲食沒有障礙的：有一種餓鬼叫「猛焰鬘」，吃下喝下的東西當下全被燒著，因此飢渴大苦一刻不歇；又有一種餓鬼叫「食糞穢」，有的只能吃糞喝尿，有的只能吃極噁心的生熟臭穢、就算給他香美食物也吃不了，有的只能割自己身上的肉吃、給他別的食物竟吃不下。

人和天的苦——再講人道受生的眾生，多受「缺乏」的苦：天生就有的飢渴之苦、想要的得不到之苦、飲食粗劣之苦、被生活逼著到處追求之苦、季節變化忽冷忽熱之苦、沒有房屋遮蔽、做的事被雨淋壞之苦、被黑暗等障礙、該做的事全荒廢之苦；又要受變壞、老、病、死的苦（地獄裡反而把死當成樂事，所以在地獄道不把死算成苦）。再講天道，沒有「關節解離」（臨死支解）的苦，但有「死墮」的苦：像經裡說的，有些天子快要墜落時，先現五種相——第一身上的衣本來不沾塵垢，現在沾上了；第二頭上的花鬘本來不謝，現在枯萎了；第三兩腋出汗；第四身上發臭；第五天和天子都坐不住本位。這時那天子躺臥林間，所有侍女卻跟別的天子一起遊樂，他一看見，就生大憂苦。又受被輕蔑、惶恐戰慄的苦：因為有大福報、大五欲的新天子一出生，那些福報較薄的舊天子一看見就惶恐，因此受大憂苦。又受被砍殺、破壞、驅趕、殘害的苦：因為天和阿修羅打仗時，互相對抗，各執金、銀、頗胝、琉璃四種兵器交戰，那時天和阿修羅或被砍斷關節、或被打破身體、或被打死——只是傷身斷節還能接回原樣，若被砍掉頭就當下死了；天和阿修羅互有勝負，不過天多半勝、力氣大；其中哪一邊被打敗，就退回自己宮裡，同類竟也不來安慰，因此心懷憂愁。（天若得勝，就進阿修羅宮裡去討好阿修羅的女子，這是起爭端的緣由；阿修羅若得勝，就進天宮去搶四種「蘇陀」美味，這是兩邊相爭的緣由。又：阿修羅其實算在天道裡，只是心機多、好用詐術、諂媚虛誑多，不像諸天是清淨的法器，所以經裡有時把它另算一道，其實是天類——因為不肯奉行諸天的法，才叫「非天」。）又有強力的天子，才一發怒，那些弱小天子就被趕出自己的宮。所以諸天受三種苦：死墮苦、被輕蔑苦、被砍殺破壞殘害驅趕苦。色界、無色界的有情則沒有這些苦，因為他們不是受苦的器皿；不過就「粗重」（煩惱習氣的逼迫）而言，還是說他們有苦——因為有煩惱、有障礙、對於死和住都不自在。只有到了無漏界，一切粗重的苦才永遠斷盡，所以唯有這個才是究竟的樂，其餘一切都是苦。

苦樂的有無·轉輪王的樂·諸天的富樂——再說：四種地獄裡沒有樂受；像地獄這樣，三種餓鬼裡也沒有。那些大力鬼、畜生、人當中，倒有靠外境得來的資具之樂，可是夾雜著種種苦。人道裡，轉輪王的樂最殊勝微妙：因為轉輪王出世時，會自然出現「七寶」，所以說他具足七寶——哪七樣？輪寶、象寶、馬寶、末尼珠寶、女寶、主藏臣寶、主兵臣寶（七寶出現的樣子，經裡有詳細說）。如果這轉輪王統四大洲，所有小國王都望風歸順，各自稟告：「某某城邑村落都歸大王所有，但願大王施恩教導，我們都願當大王的僕從。」這時輪王就下令：「你們各位國王，各自在自己的境內好好以理教化百姓，要依正法、不可用非法；你們對國對家也別行非法、別行不公平的事。」若統三洲，先派使者去、然後歸化；若統二洲，先發兵顯威、然後歸化；若統一洲，就親自前往，揮戈動刃、然後歸化。

再講諸天受用廣大的天福樂：形色殊妙、處處稱心，在自己宮中能久住，身體裡裡外外都乾淨、沒有臭穢（人身裡有許多不淨，像塵垢、筋骨、脾腎心肝，天身都沒有）。諸天有四種宮殿，用金、銀、頗胝、琉璃造成，種種文彩裝飾莊嚴；種種臺閣、樓觀、層級、窗戶、羅網都很可愛，種種末尼寶當作鑲嵌、四周放光互相照耀。又有「食樹」，樹裡長出四種食味、名叫「蘇陀」（青黃赤白四色）；有「飲樹」，流出甘美的飲料；有「乘樹」，長出種種好車（車輅、輦輿等）；有「衣樹」，長出種種好衣，細軟、色澤鮮潔、雜彩相間；有「莊嚴具樹」，長出末尼、臂印、耳璫、環釧和手腳的飾物，都用妙末尼寶鑲飾；有「熏香鬘樹」，長出種種塗香、熏香、花鬘；有「大集會樹」最為殊妙，根深五十踰繕那、樹身高一百踰繕那、枝葉遮蓋八十踰繕那，雜花開放、香氣順風飄一百踰繕那、逆風也飄五十踰繕那，三十三天在雨季四個月裡，就在這樹下用天上的妙五欲一起娛樂；又有「歌笑舞樂樹」，長出種種樂器；又有「資具樹」，長出飲食用具、坐臥用具等種種日用。諸天想受用時，隨著心願、隨著業力，要什麼就現到手中。阿修羅也照各自的福分受用種種宮殿富樂。又北拘盧洲有一種樹名叫「如意」，那裡的人要什麼用具，就從樹上取；不用動念頭，要什麼就自然到手；又有粳米不種自生、沒有「這是我的」之心；那裡的有情也沒有任何牽繫繫縛，註定只往上進、不退。又天帝釋有座「普勝殿」，是諸殿中最殊勝的，殿裡有一百座樓觀、每座樓觀有一百個臺閣、每個臺閣有七間房、每間房有七個天女、每個天女又有七個侍女。又那裡的地面平得像手掌、毫無高低，踩上去就生安樂，腳落下時陷到膝、腳抬起時隨即彈回原樣，隨時自然有曼陀羅花鋪滿地面，時時有微風把枯花吹走、再引來新花。又天宮四面各有大街，形制殊妙、樣式好看、清淨端嚴、尺寸齊整；四面又有四座大門，規模宏壯、色相奇特、看不厭、實在絕妙，有許多異類妙色的藥叉常常守護；四面又有四座園苑（一名繢車、二名麁澁、三名和雜、四名喜林），四園外又有四塊勝地、色相殊妙；天宮的東北角有個集會處名叫「善法堂」，諸天進去思考、衡量、觀察深妙的義理；近這園邊有塊「如意石」，黃白色、形質殊妙、華麗無比。又天身自然發光，等暗相一現，才知道白天過去、夜分將來，於是在天上妙五欲的遊樂中懶散睡去，異類的鳥也不再齊鳴，靠這些跡象來分白天黑夜。又諸天的妙五欲非常可愛、只生喜樂，諸天常被放逸牽著走，常聽種種歌舞音樂喧鬧聲、調笑談謔聲，常看可意的色、常聞微妙的香、常嘗美好的味、常觸天女最殊勝的觸，就被這些樂一直牽著心、過著日子。又諸天多受這些妙欲樂，永遠不生病、不衰老，沒有飲食缺乏等天生的苦，也沒有前面說的人道那種種缺乏之苦。

各層地的樂·苦樂的六種殊勝——再說：色界初靜慮地受生的諸天，受那地的「離生喜樂」（離欲所生的喜樂）；第二靜慮地受「定生喜樂」；第三靜慮地受「離喜妙樂」；第四靜慮地受「捨念清淨、寂靜不動的樂」；無色界諸天受「極寂靜的解脫樂」。又由六方面的不同，苦樂的程度也跟著不同：一身量、二柔軟、三緣、四時間、五心、六所依。怎麼說？身量越增大，苦就越重；依止的身越柔軟，苦就越重；苦的緣越猛烈眾多，苦就越重；受苦的時間越長、越沒間斷，苦就越重；心裡越沒有揀擇分別的力量，苦就越重；所依的苦器越增大，苦就越重。苦這樣，樂的殊勝也照樣類推，詳細道理可知。

樂分兩種·聖財與非聖財的十五點差別——又樂分兩種：一是「非聖財」所生的樂，二是「聖財」所生的樂。非聖財所生的樂，靠四種資具當條件才生出來：一適悅資具（車乘、衣服、莊嚴具、歌笑舞樂、塗香花鬘、種種上妙珍玩樂具、光明照耀、男女侍衛、種種庫藏）、二滋長資具（不必動腦的輪石椎打、築踏、按摩等事）、三清淨資具（吉祥草、頻螺果、螺貝滿瓮等事）、四住持資具（飲和食）。聖財所生的樂，靠七種聖財當條件才生出來——哪七種？一信、二戒、三慚、四愧、五聞、六捨（布施）、七慧。再用十五點，分清聖財樂和非聖財樂的差別：(1)非聖財樂會引起惡行，聖財樂能引起善行；(2)非聖財樂帶著有罪的喜樂，聖財樂帶著無罪的喜樂；(3)非聖財樂微小、不能遍滿身心，聖財樂廣大、能遍滿身心；(4)非聖財樂不是隨時都有（要靠外緣），聖財樂隨時都有（靠的是內緣）；(5)非聖財樂不是每一地都有（只在欲界），聖財樂每一地都有（通三界、也通無漏的不繫）；(6)非聖財樂不能引發後世的聖財、非聖財，聖財樂能引發後世的聖財、非聖財；(7)非聖財樂越受用越有盡頭，聖財樂越受用越充盛、越增長廣大；(8)非聖財樂會被人搶走（被國王、被盜賊、被仇家，或被水火），聖財樂沒人搶得走；(9)非聖財樂不能從今世帶到後世，聖財樂能從今世帶到後世；(10)非聖財樂受用時填不滿，聖財樂受用時究竟充滿；(11)到(15)非聖財樂有怖畏、有怨對、有災橫、有燒惱、不能斷後世的大苦——說「有怖畏」，是因為它是來生苦的依處；說「有怨對」，是因為它是鬥訟爭執的依處；說「有災橫」，是因為它是老病死的依處；說「有燒惱」，是因為這種樂本性不真實、像疥癩病（越抓越癢）一樣，是虛妄顛倒的依處，也是愁歎憂苦種種熱惱的依處；說「不能斷後世大苦」，是因為它是貪瞋等根本與隨煩惱二惑的依處。聖財所生的樂就相反：沒有怖畏、沒有怨對、沒有災橫、沒有燒惱、能斷後世的大苦（其餘照上面反過來推就知道）。

受用正法的五點·欲樂並不真實——又：在外追求欲望的人受用的是「欲塵」（五欲六塵），有聖慧命的人受用的是「正法」，兩者由五點看出差別，因此說有聖慧命的人是靠無上的慧命清淨地活著。哪五點？一受用正法的人不被染污、二究竟到底、三一向決定（不退）、四跟其餘維生方式不共、五有真實的樂、能摧伏魔怨。其中那些追求欲望的人所有的欲樂：是隨順「喜」的（後面跟著貪愛）、是隨順「憂」的（後面跟著瞋恚）、是隨順「捨」的（後面跟著沒有揀擇的捨）；受用正法的聖者就不是這樣。又：追求欲望的人受用欲塵，從不知起點的無始以來，因為無常，捨掉這些欲塵又得那些欲塵、或有時什麼都得不到；受用正法的聖者就不是這樣。又：受欲的人受用欲時，對同一件事一會兒生喜愛、一會兒生憂惱，反覆地對它或喜或憂；受用正法的聖者就不是這樣。又：那些已經離欲、在外修行的人，對種種見解、自己分別出來的錯誤主張，心很猛利、種種執著，始終被欲染跟著，雖然暫時離了欲，後來又退回來生起；受用正法的聖者就不是這樣。又：受欲的人，和世間已經離欲的人，所有的欲樂和離欲樂都不真實，都被魔怨跟著，像幻術、像回聲、像影子、像陽焰、像夢中所見、像幻化出來的莊嚴具（看著有、其實空）。又：那些貪著快樂的愚夫、那些受欲的人，和世間已離欲的人，凡所受用都像發瘋、像酒醉昏亂，還沒制伏魔軍就先享用，所以那種樂不真實、也制不住一切魔事；受用正法的聖者就不是這樣。

身體像個毒熱毒瘡·三種受都是苦·想受滅樂·三種離樂——再說：三界有情所依的這個身體，該怎麼看？要看成像一個有毒、發熱的毒瘡（因為粗重始終跟著它）。當這身上生起樂受時，怎麼看？像毒熱瘡暫時碰到一點涼。生起苦受時，怎麼看？像毒熱瘡被熱灰燙到。生起不苦不樂受時，怎麼看？像毒熱瘡離開了冷熱的觸、可它本身發熱的毒性還在。薄伽梵（佛）說：要知道樂受因為「壞苦」（樂壞了就苦）而是苦，苦受因為「苦苦」（苦上加苦）而是苦，不苦不樂受因為「行苦」（遷流不停）而是苦。又說有「帶愛味的喜、不帶愛味的喜、更殊勝的不帶愛味的喜」（這些經裡有詳細說，要知道它們分屬欲界、色界兩界）。又：薄伽梵把「想受滅樂」立為樂中第一——這指的是「安住的樂」，不是「領受的樂」。又說有三種樂：離貪、離瞋、離癡——這三種樂只在無漏界才有，所以叫「常樂」，屬於無漏界。

（乙）受用飲食

再講飲食。三界中將要受生、已經受生的有情，靠飲食維持壽命安住。要知道，靠「觸食、意思食、識食」這三種食，一切三界有情的壽命才安住；而「段食」這一種，只能維持欲界有情的壽命。地獄受生的有情有極微細的段食——肚子裡有微微動的風，靠這個得以久住。餓鬼、畜生、人有粗的段食——切成一段一段地吃。又有微細的食——住在羯羅藍（受胎初凝那一位）等位的有情，和欲界諸天：他們吃了以後，食物流入全身各部位，當下就消化，不留糞便。

（丙）受用男女

再講男女之事。地獄裡的有情都沒有男女之事。為什麼？因為他們長時間不停地受種種極猛利的苦，被苦逼著，男對女不起欲、女對男不起欲，更別說交合了。餓鬼、畜生、人，因為所依的身苦樂相雜，所以有男女之事——男女交合、有不淨流出。欲界諸天雖然也行男女之事，卻沒有這種不淨，只是兩根門有風氣排出，煩惱就平息了：四大王眾天要交合，熱惱才平息（三十三天也一樣）；時分天只要互相擁抱，熱惱就息；知足天只要互相牽手，熱惱就息；樂化天只要相視而笑，熱惱就息；他化自在天只要兩眼相看，熱惱就息。又：三大洲的人會娶妻妾、辦嫁娶；北拘盧洲因為沒有「這是我的」之心、沒有占有，所以一切有情都不娶妻妾、也沒有嫁娶（像三大洲人這樣，大力鬼和欲界諸天也是有娶嫁的，只有樂化天、他化自在天例外）。又：一切欲界天眾沒有處女懷胎這回事；天人是這樣出生的——四大王眾天在父母肩上或懷中、像個五歲小兒一樣忽然化現出來，三十三天像六歲、時分天像七歲、知足天像八歲、樂化天像九歲、他化自在天像十歲。

六、生建立（三種欲生·三種樂生·三種求）

再講「生」的建立。先說三種「欲生」（靠欲塵而活得富貴自在的）。第一種：有的眾生現前就住在欲塵裡，靠這現成的欲塵而富貴自在——是哪些？一切人，和從四大王眾天一直到知足天的天眾，這是第一種欲生。第二種：有的眾生自己變化出欲塵，靠這變化的欲塵而富貴自在——是樂化天，因為這層天只為自己變化欲塵、不為別人，靠自己變化的欲塵而富貴自在，這是第二種欲生。第三種：有的眾生靠別人變化的欲塵而富貴自在——是他化自在天，因為這層天為自己也能變化、為別人也能變化，所以對自己變化的不稀奇、反而拿別人變化的欲塵當富貴自在，所以叫「他化自在」（不是說這層天只受用別人變的、自己變的也受用），這是第三種欲生。

再說三種「樂生」（靠禪定喜樂而生的）。第一種：有的眾生用「離生喜樂」灌注全身，就是初靜慮地諸天，這是第一樂生。第二種：用「定生喜樂」灌注全身，就是第二靜慮地諸天，這是第二樂生。第三種：用「離喜樂」灌注全身，就是第三靜慮地諸天，這是第三樂生。問：為什麼建立三種欲生、三種樂生？答：因為有三種「求」——一欲求、二有求、三梵行求。如果出家人或婆羅門落在「欲求」裡，全都歸到三種欲生、再沒有別的；如果落在「有求」裡，多半是求樂，因為貪樂的緣故，全都歸到三種樂生（至於為了不苦不樂的寂靜生處而追求的，極少極少，所以這之上就不另立為「生」了）；如果落在「梵行求」裡，全都是為了求無漏界，不過也有一種人落在「邪梵行求」，為了求那不動的空無邊處、識無邊處、無所有處、非想非非想處，起了錯誤的分別、把它當成解脫，要知道這是「有上的梵行求」（還有更上的）；至於「無上的梵行求」，才是真求無漏界。

七、自體建立（得到自體的四種情形）

再講「自體」的建立。三界中所有眾生，得到自體（這一期生命）有四種不同的情形。(一)有的自體是「自己害自己、不被別人害」就沒了：比方有一層欲界天名叫「遊戲忘念」，那裡的天眾有時耽著種種遊樂、久久不停，因為住太久就忘失了正念，因為失念就從那裡墜落；又有一層天名叫「意憤」，那裡的天眾有時互相瞪眼對視，因為對視，怒氣越來越增，怒氣一增就從那裡墜落。(二)有的自體是「被別人害、不是自己害」：比方住在羯羅藍、遏部曇、閉尸、鍵南各胎位，以及在母腹中的眾生（要靠母體、易被外害）。(三)有的自體是「既自己害、也被別人害」：就是那些已經出生、諸根圓滿、諸根成就的眾生。(四)有的自體是「既不自己害、也不被別人害」：比方色界、無色界諸天、一切地獄眾生、像地獄的鬼、如來的使者、住最後身的人、入慈定的、入滅盡定的、入無諍定的、處在中有的，這一類。

八、因緣果建立（相·依處·差別·建立）

再講「因緣果」的建立，大致四項：一講「相」（因的相狀）、二講「依處」（因依著什麼而立）、三講「差別」（因緣果各分幾種）、四講「建立」（怎麼依依處立出各種因）。

(一) 因等的相：所謂因，是說：以「這個」為先導、以「這個」為建立、靠「這個」和合，於是某個法生起、或得到、或成立、或辦成、或起作用，就把「這個」叫做那個法的因。問：以誰為先導？以誰為建立？靠誰和合？什麼法生起？答：以「自種子」為先導；除種子依以外，其餘有色或無色的所依、和「業」為建立；「助伴、所緣」為和合——隨它各自所應，欲界繫、色界繫、無色界繫、以及不繫的諸法就生起。問：以誰為先導……得到什麼？答：以聲聞、獨覺、如來的種性為先導，以「內分力」為建立，以「外分力」為和合——於是證得「煩惱離繫」的涅槃。（「內分力」是指如理作意、少欲知足等內在善法，以及得到人身、生在有聖法的地方、諸根不缺、沒有事業障、對善處深生淨信等；「外分力」是指諸佛出世、宣說妙法、教法還在、住正法的人隨順流通、有悲心信心的人當施主等。）問：……成立什麼？答：以「對所知的勝解、愛樂」為先導，以「宗、因、譬喻」（立論三支）為建立，以「不相違的聽眾、善於問難的論敵」為和合——於是所立的義成立。問：……辦成什麼？答：以「工巧的智」為先導，以「隨之而來的勤勞」為建立，以「工巧業處的器具」為和合——於是工巧業處辦成；又以「愛」為先導，以「靠飲食而住者的依止」為建立，以「四食」為和合——於是受生的有情得以安住、辦成。問：……起什麼作用？答：以「自種子」為先導，以「這一期生」為建立，以「這一期生的緣」為和合——於是各自業力之法的作用就可知。什麼叫各法自己的業用？比方眼以「看見」為業，其餘各根各自的業用照樣可知；又地能承載、水能浸爛、火能燒、風能吹乾，這一類就是外在事物各自的業用差別。

(二) 因等的依處：共十五種——一語、二領受、三習氣、四有潤種子、五無間滅、六境界、七根、八作用、九士用、十真實見、十一隨順、十二差別功能、十三和合、十四障礙、十五無障礙。

(三) 因等的差別：分十因、四緣、五果。十因：一隨說因、二觀待因、三牽引因、四生起因、五攝受因、六引發因、七定異因、八同事因、九相違因、十不相違因。四緣：一因緣、二等無間緣、三所緣緣、四增上緣。五果：一異熟果、二等流果、三離繫果、四士用果、五增上果。

(四) 因等的建立（十因怎麼依著十五依處立起來）：依「語」這個依處，立「隨說因」——因為對三界繫法和不繫法，先安立名稱，名稱有了就起「想」，想在先、語言才轉，靠語言才隨著見、聞、覺、知說出種種話來，所以依語依處立隨說因。依「領受」依處，立「觀待因」——因為有情中，想要欲界樂、色無色界樂、不繫樂的，都觀待這個（領受），對種種資具或求取、或積集、或受用；不想要苦的，也觀待這個，對招苦的緣或求遠離，所以依領受依處立觀待因。依「習氣」依處，立「牽引因」——因為淨業不淨業熏習三界諸行，就在愛、不愛的趣中牽引出愛、不愛的自體（果報身），又靠這股增上力，外在事物也跟著興盛衰敗，所以依諸行的淨不淨業習氣依處立牽引因。依「有潤種子」依處，立「生起因」——因為三界繫法各從自己的種子生，「愛」叫能潤、種子是所潤，靠這被滋潤的種子，先前牽引下的各別自體才當下生起（像經裡說「業是感生的因、愛是生起的因」），所以依有潤種子依處立生起因。依「無間滅、境界、根、作用、士用、真實見」這幾個依處，立「攝受因」——因為欲界諸法靠無間滅來攝受、靠境界攝受、靠根攝受、靠作用攝受、靠士用攝受，諸行才轉動（色無色界法也一樣）；或者靠真實見攝受，其餘不繫法才轉，所以依這六個依處立攝受因。依「隨順」依處，立「引發因」——因為欲界善法能引發欲界更殊勝的善法，也能引發色界、無色界、不繫的善法（因為彼此隨順）；色界善法、無色界善法照樣各引發更殊勝的善法、乃至引發無為的證得；又不善法能引發更殊勝的不善法（像貪能引瞋、癡、慢、見、疑、身語意三種惡行，其餘照推）；又無記法能引發善、不善、無記法（像善不善無記的種子都藏在阿賴耶識裡），無記法也能引發更殊勝的無記法（像段食能引受生有情、令他安住、勢力增長，因為隨順），所以依隨順依處立引發因。依「差別功能」依處，立「定異因」——因為三界及不繫諸法各自的功能有差別，所以能生種種不同的功能，所以依差別功能依處立定異因。依「和合」依處，立「同事因」——因為要先得到自己生起的種種和合，欲界法才生（色無色界、不繫法也一樣）；像「生」要和合，「得、成、辦、用」也都要和合，所以依和合依處立同事因。依「障礙」依處，立「相違因」——因為欲界法將要生時，若障礙現前就生不出來（其餘界也一樣；像「生」這樣，「得、成、辦、用」也一樣），所以依障礙依處立相違因。依「無障礙」依處，立「不相違因」——因為欲界法將要生時，若沒有障礙現前，那時就生出來（其餘界也一樣；「得、成、辦、用」也一樣），所以依無障礙依處立不相違因。

再說：依「種子緣」依處立「因緣」，依「無間滅緣」依處立「等無間緣」，依「境界緣」依處立「所緣緣」，依其餘的緣依處立「增上緣」。再說：依「習氣、隨順」這兩個因緣依處，立「異熟果」和「等流果」；依「真實見」因緣依處立「離繫果」；依「士用」因緣依處立「士用果」；依其餘因緣依處立「增上果」。再說：「順益」的意思就是因的意思，「建立」的意思就是緣的意思，「成辦」的意思就是果的意思。

又「建立因」有五種相：一能生因（就是生起因）、二方便因（就是其餘的因）、三俱有因（就是攝受因的一部分，像眼對眼識、耳等對其餘識那樣同時並有）、四無間滅因（就是生起因）、五久遠滅因（就是牽引因）。又建立因另有五種相：一可愛因、二不可愛因、三增長因、四流轉因、五還滅因。又建立因另有七種相：(1)只有無常法能當因，沒有哪個常住法能當別的法的因（或當生的因、或得的因、或成立的因、或成辦的因、或作用的因）；(2)雖然是無常法當無常法的因，但是它是給「別的法」當因、或給「以後的自己」當因，不是給「當下這一剎那的自己」當因；(3)雖然給別的法和以後的自己當因，但要「已經生、還沒滅」時才能當因，不是還沒生或已經滅了還能當因；(4)雖然已生未滅，還要「得到其餘助緣」才能當因，不是得不到助緣也能當因；(5)雖然得到助緣，還要「起了變化」才能當因，不是沒變化也能當因；(6)雖然起了變化，必須「跟功能相應」才能當因，不是失去功能還能當因；(7)雖然跟功能相應，還必須「彼此相稱相順」才能當因，不是不相稱不相順也能當因。靠這七種相，隨它各自所應，各種因的建立就可知了。

These three stages — the Stage with Both Applied and Sustained Thought, the Stage with Sustained Thought Only, and the Stage with Neither Applied nor Sustained Thought — are established altogether by way of five doorways (element, characteristic, correct attention, incorrect attention, and the arising of defilement). This present piece is the first doorway, "the Designation of Elements," and it is further set out under eight items: number, place, the bodily measure of sentient beings, the lifespan of sentient beings, the enjoyments of sentient beings, birth, self-body, and cause-condition-and-fruit.

Opening: The Three Stages, the Five Doorways, and the Eight Items in the Designation of Elements

What is the Stage with Both Applied and Sustained Thought? What is the Stage with Sustained Thought Only? What is the Stage with Neither Applied nor Sustained Thought? ("Applied thought" (vitarka) is coarse mental weighing; "sustained thought" (vicāra) is fine mental examination.) The overall summary verse (uddāna) says: element, characteristic, the correct, the incorrect, and — last of all — the arising of defilement. These three stages are established, in brief, by way of five doorways: first, element; second, characteristic; third, correct attention; fourth, incorrect attention; fifth, the arising of defilement.

What is "the Designation of Elements"? The item-by-item summary verse says: number, place, measure, lifespan, enjoyment, birth, self-body, cause-condition-and-fruit. It should be known that the designation of elements is set out under eight items: first, "number" (how many kinds of element there are); second, "place" (dwelling-places); third, the bodily measure of sentient beings; fourth, the lifespan of sentient beings; fifth, the enjoyments of sentient beings; sixth, "birth"; seventh, "self-body"; eighth, "cause-condition-and-fruit."

One · The Designation by Number (How Many Kinds of Element There Are · How the Three Stages Are Divided)

What is the designation by "number"? In brief there are three kinds of element: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm — these three are together called the "elements that fall within [the three realms]" (those included inside the three realms). What does not fall within the three realms (called the "element that does not fall within") refers to the expedient path that leads to release, the state in which the view of a self is extinguished (the cessation of the reifying view, satkāya-nirodha), and the uncontaminated element free of idle proliferation.

Within these three realms, how are the three stages divided? The desire realm, together with the first meditative absorption (dhyāna) of the form realm — but excluding that stretch called the "intermediate absorption," whether one is in equipoise there or is reborn there — this whole span is called "the Stage with Both Applied and Sustained Thought" (having both applied and sustained thought). That "intermediate absorption" (a layer between the first and second absorptions), whether in equipoise or reborn there, is called "the Stage with Sustained Thought Only" (no applied thought, only sustained thought remaining); whoever cultivates his way to this layer can become a Great Brahmā. From the second meditative absorption upward, all the remaining form realm and the whole formless realm are called "the Stage with Neither Applied nor Sustained Thought" (applied and sustained thought both gone).

Note this: to say "neither applied nor sustained thought" here is said with respect to the principle of "having already departed from the craving that goes with applied and sustained thought," and not merely by looking at whether applied and sustained thought are actively occurring. Why is it put this way? Because one who has not yet departed from the craving of the desire realm may sometimes — by a difference in instruction or attention — have thoughts free of applied and sustained thought arise; while one who has already departed from the craving that goes with applied and sustained thought may sometimes still have applied and sustained thought occurring (for instance, one just emerging from equipoise, or one reborn into that layer). Furthermore, if the first meditative absorption is one subsumed under an uncontaminated conditioned concentration, it too counts as "the Stage with Both Applied and Sustained Thought" — because it enters this concentration in dependence on dharmas that are the objects of applied and sustained thought, taking suchness (tathatā) as its object, and not by the activity of discrimination. The rest is as stated before.

Two · The Designation of Place (the Desire Realm's Thirty-Six Places · the Form Realm's Eighteen Places · the Formless Realm's Four Places)

Next, dwelling-places. Within the desire realm there are thirty-six dwelling-places. First, the eight great hells (naraka means hell): first Reviving (Saṃjīva); second Black-Cord (Kālasūtra); third Crushing (Saṃghāta); fourth Wailing (Raurava); fifth Great Wailing (Mahāraurava); sixth Scorching (Tāpana); seventh Intensely Scorching (Pratāpana); eighth Uninterrupted (Avīci). Each of these great hells is ten thousand yojanas wide (a yojana is an ancient Indian unit of length, about several dozen li). Besides these there are eight cold-ice hells: first Blister (Arbuda); second Burst-Blister (Nirarbuda); third Aṭaṭa; fourth Hahava; fifth Huhuva; sixth Blue-Lotus (Utpala); seventh Red-Lotus (Padma); eighth Great-Red-Lotus (Mahāpadma). Descending from the surface thirty-two thousand yojanas, one reaches the Reviving hell; separated by a further four thousand yojanas are the remaining hells. Just as it is arranged from the Reviving great hell, so it is with the first cold-ice hell; separated by a further two thousand yojanas are the remaining hells. There are also the dwelling-places of the hungry ghosts, and the dwelling-places of the demigods (asuras, "non-gods"). (Animals dwell together with humans and gods, so no separate dwelling-place is established for them.) There are also the four great continents (spoken of before) and the eight middle continents. The desire-realm gods have six tiers: first the Heaven of the Four Great Kings; second the Heaven of the Thirty-Three; third the Heaven of Time-Division (Yāma); fourth the Heaven of Contentment (Tuṣita); fifth the Heaven of Delight-in-Emanation (Nirmāṇarati); sixth the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations (Paranirmita-vaśavartin). There is also the palace of the Māra-heaven, which is subsumed under the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations, but its location is higher. There are also the "solitary hells" and the "near-edge hells," which are in fact attached to the great hells and the cold-ice hells; because they are close by, no separate dwelling-place is established for them. Again, among humans too, a small portion of "solitary hell" can be found — as the venerable Cai-lü-zi (the one who took the mung-beans) said: "I saw many sentient beings, burning, intensely burning, burning everywhere, become altogether one mass of fire." These thirty-six places above are together named the desire realm.

The form realm has eighteen dwelling-places: the Heaven of Brahmā's Retinue (Brahmakāyika), the Heaven of Brahmā's Ministers (Brahmapurohita), and the Great Brahmā Heaven (Mahābrahmā) — these three arise from cultivating the first meditative absorption by the perfuming practice of the lower, middling, and higher grades. The Heaven of Limited Radiance (Parīttābha), the Heaven of Measureless Radiance (Apramāṇābha), and the Heaven of Utterly Pure Radiance (Ābhāsvara) — these three arise from cultivating the second meditative absorption by the lower, middling, and higher grades. The Heaven of Limited Purity (Parīttaśubha), the Heaven of Measureless Purity (Apramāṇaśubha), and the Heaven of Universal Purity (Śubhakṛtsna) — these three arise from cultivating the third meditative absorption by the lower, middling, and higher grades. The Cloudless Heaven (Anabhraka), the Heaven of Merit-Born (Puṇyaprasava), and the Heaven of Vast Fruit (Bṛhatphala) — these three arise from cultivating the fourth meditative absorption by the lower, middling, and higher grades (the "Heaven of No-Perception" (Asaṃjñisattva) is subsumed under the Heaven of Vast Fruit; no separate dwelling-place is established for it). There are also the "Five Pure-Abode Heavens" (Śuddhāvāsa), where the noble ones dwell and which the ordinary being does not share: No-Affliction (Avṛha), No-Heat (Atapa), Excellent Appearance (Sudṛśa), Excellent Vision (Sudarśana), and Ultimate-of-Form (Akaniṣṭha) — these arise from cultivating the fourth meditative absorption by the mixed perfuming of five grades: lower, middling, higher, higher-superior, and higher-supreme. Higher still, beyond the Pure-Abode heavens, there is the "Great Sovereign Dwelling-Place" (Maheśvara's abode), into which a bodhisattva of the ten grounds is born only by cultivating the tenth ground to the utmost. The formless realm has four places, or rather no place at all (because, being formless, there is no location to speak of).

Three · The Designation of the Measure of Sentient Beings (the Bodily Measure of Beings in Each Destiny)

Next, the size of the bodies of beings in each destiny. The people of the Southern Continent of Jambudvīpa (this continent of ours) are of no fixed bodily measure — sometimes tall and large, sometimes short and small — but roughly three and a half of one's own forearm-cubits. The people of the Eastern Continent of Videha have a fixed bodily measure, likewise three and a half of one's own cubits, but their bodies are taller and larger; the Western Continent of Godānīya and the Northern Continent of Kuru are the same, each in turn taller and larger. The Heaven of the Four Great Kings is one quarter of a krośa in bodily measure (a krośa is a unit of length smaller than a yojana); the Thirty-Three add a further one "foot"-unit (a "foot" being one grade of measure); Śakra's bodily measure is half a krośa; the Heaven of Time-Division is likewise half a krośa; and for the desire-realm heavens above, the bodily measure increases by one "foot"-unit tier by tier. The Heaven of Brahmā's Retinue is half a yojana in bodily measure, the Heaven of Brahmā's Ministers one yojana, the Great Brahmā one and a half yojanas, the Heaven of Limited Radiance two yojanas; and for the heavens above, the bodily measure doubles tier by tier, with only the Cloudless Heaven the exception — three yojanas must be subtracted. The bodily measure of beings in the great hells is not fixed: those who have committed and increased extremely heavy evil karma are made to receive an especially large bodily form, otherwise not; as with the great hells, so also with the cold-ice hells, the solitary hells, the near-edge hells, animals, and hungry ghosts. The bodily measure of the demigods is about the same as the Thirty-Three. It should be known that the formless realm has no material form, and so there is no bodily measure to speak of.

Four · The Designation of the Lifespan of Sentient Beings (the Lifespan of Beings in Each Destiny)

Next, lifespans. The lifespan of the people of Jambudvīpa is not fixed. They take thirty days-and-nights as one month, and twelve months as one year; at one time their lifespan is measureless years, at another eighty thousand years, and at another it dwindles all the way down to just ten years. The people of the Eastern Videha have a fixed lifespan of two hundred fifty years; the Western Godānīya a fixed five hundred years; the Northern Kuru a fixed one thousand years. Again: fifty human years are one day-and-night of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings; taking such days-and-nights, thirty days as one month and twelve months as one year, the beings of this heaven have a lifespan of five hundred years. One hundred human years are one day-and-night of the Thirty-Three; reckoning on in the same way, the beings of this heaven live one thousand years. For each remaining heaven upward, up to the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations, both the length of the day-and-night and the lifespan double over the previous tier. Again: the entire lifespan of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings equals just one day-and-night of the Reviving great hell; reckoning likewise thirty days as one month and twelve months as one year, the beings of the Reviving great hell live five hundred years. Just as the lifespan of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings is used to reckon the lifespan of the Reviving hell, so the lifespan of the Thirty-Three is used to reckon the Black-Cord hell, the Heaven of Time-Division to reckon the Crushing hell, the Heaven of Contentment to reckon the Wailing hell, the Heaven of Delight-in-Emanation to reckon the Great Wailing hell, and the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations to reckon the lifespan of the Scorching hell — all in this same way. The beings of the Intensely Scorching great hell live half an intermediate eon (antarakalpa); the beings of the Uninterrupted great hell live one intermediate eon. The lifespan of the demigods is the same as the Thirty-Three; the lifespans of animals and hungry ghosts are not fixed. Again, the cold-ice hells, matched one against another to the great hells in order, have lifespans roughly half of the former. The lifespans of beings in the near-edge hells and the solitary hells are not fixed. The Heaven of Brahmā's Retinue lives twenty intermediate eons (one eon); the Heaven of Brahmā's Ministers lives forty intermediate eons (one eon); the Great Brahmā lives sixty intermediate eons (one eon); the Heaven of Limited Radiance lives eighty intermediate eons (two eons); and for the form-realm heavens above, the lifespan doubles tier by tier, with only the Cloudless Heaven the exception — three eons must be subtracted. The Station of Boundless Space lives twenty thousand eons, the Station of Boundless Consciousness forty thousand eons, the Station of Nothing-Whatever sixty thousand eons, the Station of Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception eighty thousand eons. Except for the Northern Kuru (where the lifespan is fixed and there is no untimely death), in all other places there is the fact of "dying midway." Again: humans, hungry ghosts, and animals — these destinies leave a corpse behind after death (a residual-remnant body); but for gods and hell-beings, when life ends the body vanishes together with the consciousness, and no corpse is left behind.

Five · The Designation of the Enjoyments of Sentient Beings (Enjoyment of Pain and Pleasure · of Food and Drink · of the Sexes)

Next, what beings "enjoy," in brief three items: the enjoyment of pain and pleasure, the enjoyment of food and drink, and the enjoyment of the sexes.

(A) The Enjoyment of Pain and Pleasure

First, pain and pleasure. Hell-beings mostly undergo the pain of extremely heavy punishment; animals mostly undergo the pain of devouring one another; hungry ghosts mostly undergo the pain of extreme hunger and thirst; humans mostly undergo the pain of lacking this and that and running about seeking on all sides; gods mostly undergo the pain of the signs of decline appearing before them, on the verge of falling.

The Eight Great Hells (the Hot Hells) — First, the Reviving hell, where beings mostly undergo the pain of extremely heavy punishment: they are constantly gathered together, and by force of karma all sorts of harmful instruments of torture arise one after another, so that they mutually slaughter one another, until they faint from the pain and fall to the ground. At this a great voice comes from the sky, crying out: "These beings may revive again! Revive again!" Whereupon they suddenly come back to life and are again mutually slaughtered by the aforesaid instruments. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until all the evil, unwholesome karma made in former lives is exhausted and they have won release. And so this hell is named "Reviving" (revived and slaughtered, slaughtered and revived). Next, the Black-Cord hell, where beings mostly undergo the heavy pain of punishment: there the beings are mostly marked out by the hell-wardens with black cords snapped onto their bodies — into squares, or eights sides, or all sorts of designs — and once the lines are snapped on, they are chiseled, hewn, chopped, and gouged along those lines. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until the evil karma of former lives is not exhausted and they are not released — and so it is named "Black-Cord." Next, the Crushing hell: when the beings there are gathered together in turns, hell-wardens drive and press them in between two great mountains shaped like "iron ram-heads," and when the two mountains close upon them, blood flows from every orifice of the whole body; besides the iron ram-heads, there are also two iron he-goat-heads, two iron horse-heads, two iron elephant-heads, two iron lion-heads, and two iron tiger-heads, all the same. Then they are gathered again into a great iron trough and pressed, as one presses sugarcane, so that blood flows out; and gathered again, a great iron mountain drops from above and crushes them down onto the iron ground, where they are chopped or stabbed, pounded or torn, so that blood flows out. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until the evil karma of former lives is not exhausted and they are not released — and so it is named "Crushing." Next, the Wailing hell: the beings there, wishing to find a house to hide in, go into a great iron chamber, and the moment they enter, the chamber bursts into flame, burning with darting tongues of fire, and unable to bear the pain, they let out loud wails. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until the evil karma of former lives is not exhausted and they are not released — and so it is named "Wailing." Next, the Great Wailing hell, where the suffering differs from the foregoing in this: the chamber is like a sealed womb-sac (all the more inescapable) — and so it is named "Great Wailing." Next, the Scorching hell: the hell-wardens place the beings on iron plates heated red-hot, measureless yojanas wide, turning them left and right, roasting them inside and out; and as one roasts a fish, they run a great iron spit up from below, straight through and out the crown of the head, roasting them over and over, until fire jets from every pore and from the mouth; and they place the beings on a great scalding iron ground, face-up or face-down, and with red-hot great iron mallets and cudgels beat and pound, beating and pounding all over the body until it becomes a lump of minced flesh. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until the evil karma of former lives is not exhausted and they are not released — and so it is named "Scorching." Next, the Intensely Scorching hell, differing in this: a three-pronged great hot iron spit is run in from below, straight through both shoulders and out the crown, whereupon fierce flames spurt from the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and every pore; and red-hot great copper-and-iron plates entirely wrap the whole body; and the beings are flung head-first into a great iron cauldron brimming with hot ash-water and boiled, and as the broth boils up, the being tumbles up and down with the broth, now floating now sinking, until flesh, blood, skin, and veins are all boiled to shreds and only a skeleton remains, whereupon it is at once fished out and set on the iron ground, so that skin, flesh, blood, and veins grow back as before, and it is thrown back into the cauldron. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until the evil karma of former lives is not exhausted and they are not released — and so it is named "Intensely Scorching." Next, the Uninterrupted hell, where beings undergo the pain of extremely heavy punishment without a moment's break: from red-hot great iron ground, many hundreds of yojanas to the east, fierce fire comes riding with darting flames and pierces the beings, penetrating skin and entering flesh, severing sinews and breaking bones, then boring into the marrow, burning like an oil-candle, so that the whole body becomes a mass of flame; as it comes from the east, so also from the south, west, and north. By this the beings are mixed together with the fierce flames, and one sees only masses of fire coming from the four directions, flames intermingled with no gap at all, and the suffering they undergo has no gap either; only from the wailing forced out by the pain does one know there are beings still alive within. And they are winnowed with iron baskets filled with red-hot fire-coals; and set on the hot iron ground and made to climb the great hot iron mountain, up and then down, down and then up; the tongue is drawn out from the mouth and nailed open and stretched flat with a hundred iron nails, like a stretched ox-hide without a single wrinkle; and they are made to lie face-up on the hot iron ground, and with red-hot iron tongs the mouth is pried open, and a red-hot great iron ball is stuffed into the mouth, at once burning the mouth and throat, burning through the inner organs, and coming out below; and molten copper is poured into the mouth, burning throat and mouth, burning through the inner organs, and flowing out below; the rest of the sufferings are as told of the "Intensely Scorching." Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until the evil karma of former lives is not exhausted and they are not released — and so it is named "Uninterrupted" — and mostly it is those who have committed the "five uninterrupted deeds" (ānantarya) who are born here. This is only a rough account of a few conspicuous instruments of torture, and does not mean that all the other manifold instruments of suffering in this great hell are absent.

The Near-Edge Hells (the Four Exit-Gardens) — Next, the near-edge hells. Each great hell has four sides, four banks, four gates, and is surrounded by iron walls; going out through the four gates, outside each gate there are four "exit-gardens" (gardens where one suffers upon coming out). The first is "hot ash" (Kukūla) up to the knees: beings come out to seek a house and, walking to here, the moment a foot comes down, skin, flesh, and blood at once rot away, and when the foot is lifted, they grow back. Immediately after comes "corpse-and-dung mire" (Kuṇapa): the beings, seeking a house, come out from the hot ash and walk slowly along, sinking into the mire until head and feet are wholly submerged; and in the dung-mire there are many worms, named "Nyaṅkuṭa," which pierce skin and enter flesh, sever sinews and break bones, and take out the marrow to eat. Next comes "the road of upturned sharp sword-blades" (Kṣuradhārā, blades pointing up laid out as a path): the moment a being's foot comes down, skin, flesh, sinews, and blood all rot away, and when the foot is lifted, it is restored as before. Next comes "the forest of blade-leaves" (Asipattra-vana, a forest whose leaves are sword-blades): the beings, seeking a house, walk in, and no sooner have they sat beneath a tree than a light breeze rises and the blade-leaves fall, severing all the joints of the whole body, so that they fall to the ground at once; and black dogs come to drag and bite the back and eat them. Next comes "the iron Śālmalī forest" (the iron thorn-tree forest): the beings climb it, and as they climb up all the thorn-points turn downward, and when they wish to climb down all the thorn-points turn upward, piercing all the joints of the whole body; and at this an iron-beaked great crow flies onto their heads, or perches on their shoulders, and digs out and eats the eyeballs. Next comes "the vast river," filled with scalding ash-water: the beings fall in, and as one puts beans into a great cauldron and boils them over a fierce fire below, they tumble along with the broth, whirling round and round; on the two banks of the river hell-wardens stand in a row holding staves, cords, and great nets, barring the beings from getting out, snaring them with cords or scooping them with nets, and setting them on the hot iron ground, facing them upward and asking: "What is it you want now?" They answer: "I know nothing at all — only that I am unbearably hungry." The hell-warden then pries the mouth open with iron tongs and stuffs a red-hot iron ball into the mouth (the rest as told before); if they answer, "I only feel unbearably thirsty," the hell-warden pours molten copper into the mouth. Thus for a long time they undergo suffering, until all the evil, unwholesome karma of former lives able to bring on hell is exhausted and they are released. (Here the sword-blade road, the blade-leaf forest, and the iron thorn-tree forest are counted together as one, so that there are four gardens in all.)

The Cold-Ice Hells — Next, the beings born in the cold-ice hells, who mostly undergo the pain of extremely heavy cold. Those born in the Blister hell, touched by that region's extremely heavy and vast cold, have all their limbs shrivel into a lump, like a rising blister — and so it is named "Blister." The Burst-Blister hell differs in this: like a blister that has burst, pus and blood flow out and the sore curls and wrinkles — and so it is named "Burst-Blister." The three hells Aṭaṭa, Hahava, and Huhuva are named according to the differing cries of pain the beings make from the cold. In the Blue-Lotus hell: touched by the extremely heavy and vast cold, the whole body goes blue and livid, and the skin cracks in five or six places — and so it is named "Blue-Lotus." The Red-Lotus hell differs in this: past the blue stage, the color turns red, and the skin cracks in ten or more places — and so it is named "Red-Lotus." The Great-Red-Lotus hell differs in this: the body is extremely red, and the skin cracks in a hundred or more places — and so it is named "Great-Red-Lotus."

Solitary Hells · Animals · Hungry Ghosts — Next, the beings born in the solitary hells, each impelled by his own karma, mostly undergo all sorts of great suffering (as told in detail in the Sūtra of the Auspicious One's Questions on Gathering Mung-Beans) — and so it is named "solitary." Next, the animal destiny, where they mutually slaughter one another, the weak killed and harmed by the strong, and so undergo all sorts of suffering; and being not their own masters, driven and used by others, often beaten and whipped, and having to serve as living implements for humans and gods (eaten and used), they thus undergo all sorts of extremely heavy suffering and distress. Next, the hungry-ghost destiny, in brief three kinds: the first, blocked from food "externally" and unable to reach it; the second, blocked "internally" and unable to get it down; the third, with no obstruction to food and drink. Blocked externally and unable to reach it: such beings, because in former lives they were miserly to the extreme, are born in the ghost destiny, always hungry and thirsty, their skin, flesh, blood, and veins all withered like fire-coals, their hair disheveled, their faces charred black, their lips parched and cracked, constantly licking their mouths and faces with their tongues; hungry, thirsty, and panicked, they run about everywhere; but at every spring, pool, or pond they reach, there are other beings standing guard in rows, holding swords, staves, and cords, keeping them from approaching, and even if they force their way through, the spring at once turns to pus and blood, and they no longer wish to drink it. Blocked internally and unable to get it down: such beings have mouths as small as a needle's eye, or like a torch, or have a great goiter on the neck while the belly is very large, and for this reason, even when they get food and drink and no one blocks them, they cannot themselves swallow it down or drink it in. With no obstruction to food and drink: there is a kind of hungry ghost named "Blazing-Garland" (Jvālāmālin), and whatever it eats or drinks is at once set aflame, so that the great pain of hunger and thirst never rests for a moment; and there is a kind of hungry ghost named "Dung-Filth-Eater," some of whom can only eat dung and drink urine, some of whom can only eat the most loathsome raw and cooked stinking filth and cannot eat even fragrant fine food given them, and some of whom can only cut and eat the flesh of their own bodies and cannot get down any other food given them.

The Sufferings of Humans and Gods — Next, the beings born in the human destiny, who mostly undergo the pain of "lack": the innate pain of hunger and thirst; the pain of not obtaining what is desired; the pain of coarse food and drink; the pain of being driven by life to seek on all sides; the pain of seasonal change, now cold now hot; the pain of having no house for shelter, so that what one does is ruined by rain-leakage; and the pain of being obstructed by darkness and the like, so that the tasks to be done are all abandoned; and further the pain of change-and-decay, aging, sickness, and death (in the hells, by contrast, death is taken as a pleasure, so in the hell destiny death is not counted as a pain). Next, the god destiny, which has no pain of "joint-dissolution" (the dismembering at the moment of death), but does have the pain of "death-and-falling": as the sūtra says, when certain divine sons are about to fall, five signs first appear — first, the garments on the body, which never took on stain or dirt, now take on stain; second, the flower-garland on the head, which never withered, now wilts; third, sweat flows from both armpits; fourth, the body turns foul-smelling; fifth, the god and the divine son can no longer bear to sit in their proper seat. At this the divine son lies down in the grove, while all his attendant maidens go off to sport together with other divine sons, and seeing this, he gives rise to great grief and suffering. Again, he undergoes the pain of being slighted, terrified, and trembling: because when new divine sons endowed with great store of merit and great fivefold sense-pleasures are born, the older divine sons of thinner merit, on seeing them, are terrified, and by this undergo great grief and suffering. Again, he undergoes the pain of being cut and slaughtered, broken, driven off, and harmed: for when the gods and the demigods go to war, mutually opposing and resisting one another, each wields the four kinds of weapon — gold, silver, crystal, and beryl — and does battle, and then the gods and demigods have their joints severed, or their bodies broken, or are even killed — though a wound to the body or a severed joint can be rejoined and restored, but if the head is cut off, they die at once; the gods and the demigods have victory over one another by turns, but the gods mostly win, being stronger; whichever side is defeated retreats into its own palace, and its own kind do not even come to console it, so that it harbors grief. (When the gods win, they enter the demigods' palace to court the demigods' women — this is the occasion for provoking strife; when the demigods win, they enter the gods' palace to seize the four kinds of "sudhā" delicacy — this is the occasion for the two sides' contention. Again: the demigods are in fact subsumed under the god destiny, only they are full of scheming, fond of trickery, and much given to flattery and deceit, unlike the gods who are pure vessels of the dharma; and so the sūtra sometimes counts them as a separate destiny, though in truth they are of the god kind — it is because they will not practice the dharmas of the gods that they are called "non-gods.") Again, there are powerful divine sons who, the moment they give way to anger, drive the weaker divine sons out of their own palaces. So the gods undergo three kinds of suffering: the suffering of death-and-falling, the suffering of being slighted, and the suffering of being cut and slaughtered, broken, harmed, and driven off. The sentient beings of the form and formless realms, however, have none of these sufferings, because they are not vessels for painful feeling; yet in terms of "gross heaviness" (the pressing-in of afflictive habit-energy) they are still said to have suffering — because they have afflictions, have obstructions, and are not at ease with respect to death and dwelling. Only when the uncontaminated element is reached is all the gross-heavy suffering forever cut off, and so this alone is the ultimate pleasure, and all else is suffering.

The Presence and Absence of Pain and Pleasure · the Pleasure of the Wheel-Turning King · the Wealth and Bliss of the Gods — Again: in the four kinds of hell there is no pleasant feeling; as with the hells, so also in the three kinds of hungry ghost. Among the powerful ghosts, animals, and humans, there is indeed the pleasure of goods and provisions gained from external things, yet mixed with all sorts of pain. In the human destiny, the pleasure of the Wheel-Turning King is most excellent and subtle: for when a Wheel-Turning King appears in the world, the "seven treasures" spontaneously appear, and so it is said that he is endowed with the seven treasures — which seven? The wheel-treasure, the elephant-treasure, the horse-treasure, the maṇi-jewel-treasure, the woman-treasure, the treasury-steward-treasure, and the army-general-treasure (how the seven treasures appear is told in detail in the sūtra). If this Wheel-Turning King rules the four continents, all the lesser kings submit at the mere rumor of his coming, each announcing: "Such-and-such cities, towns, and villages all belong to the great king; may the great king bestow his grace and instruction, and we shall all be the great king's servants." At this the wheel-king issues the command: "You kings, each of you govern your own domains rightly, by the true dharma and not by non-dharma; and toward your states and households do not act by non-dharma, do not act by inequity." If he rules three continents, he first sends envoys and then they come over; if he rules two continents, he first raises troops and displays his might and then they come over; if he rules one continent, he goes in person, wielding halberd and blade, and then they come over.

Next, the gods enjoy the vast heavenly wealth and bliss: their form and complexion superbly fine, delighted at every turn, able to dwell long in their own palaces, their bodies pure within and without, with no foul odor (the human body has much impurity within — dust and dirt, sinew and bone, spleen, kidney, heart, and liver — the god's body has none of these). The gods have four kinds of palace, made of gold, silver, crystal, and beryl, adorned and made splendid with all sorts of patterned brocade; all sorts of terraces, towers, tiered stories, windows, and net-lattices are lovely; all sorts of maṇi-jewels are set as inlay, radiating light all around and mutually illuminating. There is also a "food-tree," from within whose trunk come the four flavors of food named "sudhā" (blue, yellow, red, and white); a "drink-tree," which yields sweet fine drink; a "vehicle-tree," which produces all sorts of fine conveyances (chariots, carriages, palanquins, and the like); a "clothing-tree," which produces all sorts of fine garments, soft and fine, of bright and pure color, mingled brocade; an "ornament-tree," which produces maṇi, arm-seals, ear-pendants, rings and bracelets, and hand- and foot-ornaments, all inlaid with fine maṇi-jewels; an "incense-and-garland-tree," which produces all sorts of anointing-perfumes, incenses, and flower-garlands; and a "Great Assembly Tree" most superb and subtle — its roots reaching down fifty yojanas, its trunk rising a hundred yojanas high, its branches and leaves covering eighty yojanas, its mingled flowers blossoming, its fragrance carried a hundred yojanas downwind and fifty yojanas upwind — beneath which the Thirty-Three, during the four months of the rainy season, disport themselves together with the fine heavenly fivefold sense-pleasures; and there is a "singing-laughing-dancing-music tree," which produces all sorts of musical instruments; and a "provisions-tree," which produces food-and-drink implements, sitting-and-lying implements, and all such daily necessities. When the gods wish to enjoy, then according to their wish and according to their karma, whatever they want appears in hand. The demigods too, each according to his lot, enjoy all sorts of palatial wealth and bliss. Again, in the Northern Kuru there is a kind of tree named "wish-fulfilling": there the people, whatever implements they want, take from the tree; without stirring a thought, whatever they want comes to hand of itself; and there is rice that grows unsown and without the thought "this is mine"; and the beings there have no attachments or bonds whatever, being fixed to advance upward and not fall back. Again, the god-emperor Śakra has an "All-Victorious Palace," the most excellent of all palaces, in which there are a hundred towers, each tower with a hundred terraces, each terrace with seven chambers, each chamber with seven divine maidens, and each divine maiden with seven attendant maidens. Again, the ground there is level as the palm of a hand, wholly without high or low, and treading on it gives rise to ease and pleasure; when a foot comes down it sinks to the knee, and when the foot is lifted it springs back at once; and at all times there are naturally mandārava flowers spread over the whole ground, and from moment to moment a light breeze blows away the withered flowers and draws in new ones. Again, the divine palace has great avenues on each of its four sides, of superb form, pleasing pattern, pure and stately, of even measure; on the four sides also are four great gates, grand in scale and rare in color and appearance, unwearying to behold, truly matchless, and many marvelous asuras of manifold fine hues constantly stand guard; on the four sides also are four garden-parks (the first named Painted-Chariot, the second Rough, the third Mixed, the fourth Grove-of-Delight), and outside the four parks are four superb grounds of superb color and appearance; and at the northeast corner of the divine palace is an assembly-place named the "Hall of Good Dharma" (Sudharmā), where the gods enter to ponder, weigh, and observe the profound and subtle meaning; and beside this park is a "wish-fulfilling stone" of yellow-white color, of superb form and substance, splendid beyond compare. Again, the god's body naturally radiates light, and only when the sign of darkness appears does one know that day has passed and the division of night is coming, whereupon amid the sporting of the heavenly fine fivefold pleasures they drift lazily off to sleep, and the manifold birds no longer sing in chorus — by such signs are day and night distinguished. Again, the gods' fine fivefold pleasures are exceedingly lovely and give rise only to joy; the gods are constantly led along by heedlessness, constantly hearing all sorts of song, dance, music, and clamor, jesting, laughter, chatter, and banter, constantly seeing pleasing forms, smelling subtle fragrances, tasting fine flavors, and touching the most excellent touch of the divine maidens, drawn along by these pleasures and passing their days so. Again, the gods, undergoing much of these fine sense-pleasures, are forever free of sickness and never age, having none of the innate suffering of lacking food and drink, nor any of the various sufferings of "lack" told before of the human destiny.

The Pleasure of Each Stage · the Six Ways in Which Pain and Pleasure Are Distinguished — Again: the gods born in the first meditative-absorption stage of the form realm undergo that stage's "joy-and-pleasure born of seclusion" (the joy-and-pleasure arising from departure from craving); the gods of the second-absorption stage undergo "joy-and-pleasure born of concentration"; the gods of the third-absorption stage undergo "the wondrous pleasure of the departure from joy"; the gods of the fourth-absorption stage undergo "the pleasure of equanimity-mindfulness-purity, still and unmoving"; and the gods of the formless realm undergo "the pleasure of utterly still liberation." Again, by six differences the degree of pain and pleasure differs accordingly: first, bodily measure; second, softness; third, condition; fourth, time; fifth, mind; sixth, basis. How so? The larger the bodily measure grows, the heavier the pain; the softer the body one depends on, the heavier the pain; the fiercer and more numerous the conditions of pain, the heavier the pain; the longer and less interrupted the time of undergoing pain, the heavier the pain; the less the mind has the power of discriminating selection, the heavier the pain; the larger the vessel-of-pain that is the basis grows, the heavier the pain. As with pain, so the excellence of pleasure is to be inferred in the same way, and its detailed principle may be known.

Pleasure Is of Two Kinds · Fifteen Points of Difference between Noble Wealth and Non-Noble Wealth — Again, pleasure is of two kinds: first, the pleasure produced by "non-noble wealth"; second, the pleasure produced by "noble wealth." The pleasure produced by non-noble wealth arises in dependence on four kinds of provision as conditions: first, provisions that give delight (vehicles, garments, ornaments, singing-laughing-dancing-music, anointing-perfumes and flower-garlands, all sorts of fine and precious playthings and instruments of pleasure, radiant lights, male and female attendants and guards, and all sorts of treasuries); second, provisions that nourish and increase (rolling-stone pounding, treading, massage, and the like that need no deliberation); third, provisions that purify (auspicious grass, bimbā-fruit, conches and jars filled full, and the like); fourth, provisions that sustain (drink and food). The pleasure produced by noble wealth arises in dependence on the seven kinds of noble wealth as conditions — which seven? First, faith; second, discipline; third, moral shame; fourth, moral dread; fifth, learning; sixth, giving; seventh, wisdom. Further, by fifteen points the difference between the pleasure of noble wealth and that of non-noble wealth is made clear: (1) the pleasure of non-noble wealth gives rise to evil conduct, while the pleasure of noble wealth gives rise to good conduct; (2) the pleasure of non-noble wealth is joined with a joy that carries fault, while the pleasure of noble wealth is joined with a joy free of fault; (3) the pleasure of non-noble wealth is slight and cannot pervade body and mind, while the pleasure of noble wealth is vast and can pervade body and mind; (4) the pleasure of non-noble wealth is not present at all times (relying on external conditions), while the pleasure of noble wealth is present at all times (relying on internal conditions); (5) the pleasure of non-noble wealth is not present in every stage (only in the desire realm), while the pleasure of noble wealth is present in every stage (pervading the three realms and also the unbound-uncontaminated); (6) the pleasure of non-noble wealth cannot call forth the noble and non-noble wealth of a later life, while the pleasure of noble wealth can call forth the noble and non-noble wealth of a later life; (7) the more the pleasure of non-noble wealth is enjoyed, the more it comes to an end, while the more the pleasure of noble wealth is enjoyed, the more it flourishes and grows vast; (8) the pleasure of non-noble wealth can be plundered by others (by kings, by thieves, by foes, or by water and fire), while the pleasure of noble wealth none can rob; (9) the pleasure of non-noble wealth cannot be carried from this life to the next, while the pleasure of noble wealth can be carried from this life to the next; (10) the pleasure of non-noble wealth cannot be filled up when enjoyed, while the pleasure of noble wealth is ultimately fulfilled when enjoyed; (11) through (15) the pleasure of non-noble wealth has terror, has enmity, has calamity, has burning distress, and cannot cut off the great suffering of a later life — it is said to "have terror" because it is the basis of the suffering of a future birth; said to "have enmity" because it is the basis of quarrels, litigation, and strife; said to "have calamity" because it is the basis of aging, sickness, and death; said to "have burning distress" because such pleasure is by nature unreal, like the disease of scabies (the more one scratches the more it itches), being the basis of falsehood and delusion, and the basis of grief, lamentation, sorrow, pain, and all sorts of burning affliction; said to "not be able to cut off the great suffering of a later life" because it is the basis of the two afflictions, the root and the derivative, such as greed and hatred. The pleasure produced by noble wealth is the opposite: without terror, without enmity, without calamity, without burning distress, and able to cut off the great suffering of a later life (the rest may be known by inverting the above).

The Five Points of Enjoying the True Dharma · Sensual Pleasure Is Not Real — Again: the one who seeks desires outwardly enjoys the "dust of desire" (the five sense-pleasures and six sense-objects), while the one with the noble life of wisdom enjoys the "true dharma," and the two are distinguished by five points, so that the one with the noble life of wisdom is said to live purely by the unsurpassed life of wisdom. Which five? First, the one who enjoys the true dharma is undefiled; second, he is ultimate to the end; third, he is fixed and single-directed (irreversible); fourth, he is not shared with the other modes of livelihood; fifth, he has real pleasure and can crush the Māra-foe. Among these, all the sensual pleasure of those who seek desires is in accord with "joy" (followed by craving), in accord with "sorrow" (followed by hatred), and in accord with "equanimity" (followed by an equanimity that lacks discriminating selection); the noble one who enjoys the true dharma is not so. Again: those who seek desires and enjoy the dust of desire, from beginningless time whose start cannot be known, on account of impermanence, cast off these desire-dusts and get those, or at some time get nothing at all; the noble one who enjoys the true dharma is not so. Again: those who enjoy desires, when enjoying desire, over one and the same thing at one moment give rise to delight and at another to sorrow, alternately delighting or grieving over it; the noble one who enjoys the true dharma is not so. Again: those who have already departed from desire and cultivate outwardly, toward all sorts of views and the mistaken convictions they have themselves fabricated, are keen of mind and grasping in all sorts of ways, forever followed by the taint of desire, so that though they have departed from desire for a time, it later returns and arises again; the noble one who enjoys the true dharma is not so. Again: for those who enjoy desires, and for those in the world who have already departed from desire, all their sensual pleasure and their pleasure-of-departing-from-desire are unreal, all followed by the Māra-foe — like an illusion, like an echo, like a shadow, like a mirage, like what is seen in a dream, like conjured ornaments (seeming to be there, yet in fact empty). Again: those pleasure-attached fools, those enjoyers of desire, and those in the world who have already departed from desire, whatever they enjoy is like madness, like drunken confusion, enjoying it before they have subdued the Māra-army — and so that pleasure is unreal and cannot subdue any of the deeds of Māra; the noble one who enjoys the true dharma is not so.

The Body Is Like a Poisonous, Feverish Boil · All Three Feelings Are Suffering · the Pleasure of the Cessation of Perception-and-Feeling · the Three Pleasures of Departure — Again: this body, the basis on which the sentient beings of the three realms depend — how should it be regarded? It should be regarded as a poisonous, feverish boil (because gross-heaviness forever accompanies it). When a pleasant feeling arises in this body, how should it be regarded? Like a poisonous feverish boil momentarily meeting a bit of coolness. When a painful feeling arises, how should it be regarded? Like a poisonous feverish boil touched by hot ash. When a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises, how should it be regarded? Like a poisonous feverish boil that has left off the touch of cold and heat, while its own feverish poison still remains. The Blessed One (the Buddha) said: know that a pleasant feeling is suffering by way of the "suffering of change" (when the pleasure is spoiled there is suffering); a painful feeling is suffering by way of the "suffering of suffering" (suffering added to suffering); a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is suffering by way of the "suffering of formations" (the ceaseless flux). It is also said that there is a "joy with the savor of craving, a joy without the savor of craving, and a still more excellent joy without the savor of craving" (these are told in detail in the sūtra, and should be known to belong respectively to the two realms of desire and form). Again: the Blessed One sets up the "pleasure of the cessation of perception-and-feeling" as the foremost among pleasures — this refers to the "pleasure of abiding," not the "pleasure of experiencing." It is also said that there are three kinds of pleasure: departure from greed, departure from hatred, and departure from delusion — these three pleasures are found only in the uncontaminated element, and so this pleasure is named "constant pleasure," belonging to the uncontaminated element.

(B) The Enjoyment of Food and Drink

Next, food and drink. The sentient beings of the three realms, about to be born and already born, sustain and dwell in their lifespan by food. It should be known that by the three foods of "contact-food, mental-volition-food, and consciousness-food," the lifespan of all sentient beings of the three realms is sustained; while the one food of "morsel-food" sustains the lifespan of the sentient beings of the desire realm only. The sentient beings born in the hells have extremely subtle morsel-food — within the belly there is a faintly moving wind, and by this they get to dwell long. Hungry ghosts, animals, and humans have coarse morsel-food — eaten in cut-up morsels. There is also subtle food: the sentient beings dwelling in stages such as the kalala (the first congealing at conception) and the desire-realm gods — once they have eaten, the food flows into all parts and joints of the body, is at once digested, and leaves no excrement.

(C) The Enjoyment of the Sexes

Next, the matter of the sexes. The sentient beings in the hells all have no sexual affairs. Why? Because they long and unremittingly undergo all sorts of extremely fierce suffering, and pressed by suffering, the male gives rise to no desire toward the female, and the female none toward the male — much less any coupling. Hungry ghosts, animals, and humans, because the bodies they depend on have pain and pleasure mixed, therefore have sexual affairs — the two sexes couple, and impurity issues forth. The desire-realm gods, though they too engage in sexual affairs, have none of this impurity, but only a wind-vapor issuing from the two organs' gates, and the affliction is then stilled: the Heaven of the Four Great Kings must couple for the burning affliction to be stilled (the Thirty-Three likewise); the Heaven of Time-Division has only to embrace one another and the burning affliction is stilled; the Heaven of Contentment has only to hold hands and the burning affliction is stilled; the Heaven of Delight-in-Emanation has only to look at one another and smile and the burning affliction is stilled; the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations has only for the two to gaze at one another and the burning affliction is stilled. Again: the people of the three continents take wives and concubines and hold weddings; the Northern Kuru, because it has no thought of "this is mine" and no possessiveness, all its sentient beings take no wives or concubines and have no weddings (as with the people of the three continents, so also the powerful ghosts and the desire-realm gods do have marrying, with only the Heaven of Delight-in-Emanation and the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations as exceptions). Again: none of the desire-realm gods has the matter of a maiden conceiving in the womb; the gods are born in this way — in the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, on the parents' shoulders or in their laps, a god suddenly manifests like a five-year-old child; in the Thirty-Three like a six-year-old; the Heaven of Time-Division like a seven-year-old; the Heaven of Contentment like an eight-year-old; the Heaven of Delight-in-Emanation like a nine-year-old; the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations like a ten-year-old.

Six · The Designation of Birth (the Three Kinds of Desire-Birth · the Three Kinds of Pleasure-Birth · the Three Kinds of Seeking)

Next, the designation of "birth." First, the three kinds of "desire-birth" (those who live in wealth and ease by way of the dust of desire). The first: some beings dwell right in the presently-available dust of desire, and by this ready-made dust of desire live in wealth and ease — which are they? All humans, and the gods from the Heaven of the Four Great Kings up to the Heaven of Contentment; this is the first desire-birth. The second: some beings emanate their own dust of desire, and by this emanated dust of desire live in wealth and ease — this is the Heaven of Delight-in-Emanation, because this heaven emanates dust of desire only for itself and not for others, and by its own emanated dust of desire lives in wealth and ease; this is the second desire-birth. The third: some beings live in wealth and ease by way of the dust of desire emanated by others — this is the Heaven of Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations, because this heaven can emanate for its own sake and can also emanate for others' sake, so that it does not prize what it emanates for itself, but rather takes the dust of desire emanated by others as its wealth and ease — and so it is named "Mastery-over-Others'-Emanations" (not that this heaven enjoys only what others emanate; it enjoys what it emanates itself as well); this is the third desire-birth.

Next, the three kinds of "pleasure-birth" (those born by way of the joy-and-pleasure of meditative concentration). The first: some beings suffuse their whole body with "joy-and-pleasure born of seclusion" — these are the gods of the first meditative-absorption stage; this is the first pleasure-birth. The second: suffuse the whole body with "joy-and-pleasure born of concentration" — these are the gods of the second-absorption stage; this is the second pleasure-birth. The third: suffuse the whole body with "the pleasure of the departure from joy" — these are the gods of the third-absorption stage; this is the third pleasure-birth. Question: Why are the three kinds of desire-birth and the three kinds of pleasure-birth set up? Answer: Because there are three kinds of "seeking" — first, the seeking of desire; second, the seeking of existence; third, the seeking of the holy life. If a renunciant or brahmin falls into the "seeking of desire," all of them are subsumed under the three kinds of desire-birth, and no other; if he falls into the "seeking of existence," he mostly seeks pleasure, and because of coveting pleasure, all of them are subsumed under the three kinds of pleasure-birth (as for those who seek a still, neither-painful-nor-pleasant place of birth, they are exceedingly few, and so nothing above this is set up as a "birth"); if he falls into the "seeking of the holy life," all of them are for the sake of seeking the uncontaminated element — though there is also a kind who falls into the "wrong seeking of the holy life," seeking that unmoving Station of Boundless Space, Station of Boundless Consciousness, Station of Nothing-Whatever, and Station of Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception, giving rise to a mistaken discrimination and taking it for liberation — and this, it should be known, is the "surpassable seeking of the holy life" (there is something higher still); as for the "unsurpassed seeking of the holy life," that alone is the true seeking of the uncontaminated element.

Seven · The Designation of Self-Body (the Four Ways of Obtaining a Self-Body)

Next, the designation of "self-body." All the beings of the three realms obtain a self-body (this present span of life) in four different ways. (i) Some self-bodies come to an end by "harming oneself, not being harmed by others": for instance, there is a desire-realm heaven named "Sport-and-Forget-Mindfulness," where the gods sometimes indulge in all sorts of sport and play for a long time without cease, and because they dwell so long they lose right mindfulness, and because of lost mindfulness they fall from there; and there is a heaven named "Mind-Fury," where the gods sometimes glare and stare at one another, and because of the staring their fury grows and grows, and because the fury grows they fall from there. (ii) Some self-bodies are "harmed by others, not harmed by oneself": for instance, the beings dwelling in the stages of kalala, arbuda, peśī, and ghana, and in the mother's womb (dependent on the mother's body, easily harmed from without). (iii) Some self-bodies are "both harmed by oneself and harmed by others": these are the beings already born, with sense-faculties complete and mature. (iv) Some self-bodies are "neither harmed by oneself nor harmed by others": for instance, the gods of the form and formless realms, all hell-beings, hell-like ghosts, the Tathāgata's messengers, those in their final body, those in the concentration of loving-kindness, those in the concentration of cessation, those in the concentration of non-contention, and those dwelling in the intermediate existence — beings of this class.

Eight · The Designation of Cause-Condition-and-Fruit (Characteristic · Basis · Distinction · Establishment)

Next, the designation of "cause-condition-and-fruit," in brief under four items: first, "characteristic" (the characteristic of a cause); second, "basis" (that in dependence on which a cause is set up); third, "distinction" (how many kinds causes, conditions, and fruits are each divided into); fourth, "establishment" (how the various causes are set up in dependence on the bases).

(i) The Characteristic of Cause and the Rest: what is called a cause is this — with "this" as forerunner, with "this" as establisher, and by the coming-together of "this," a certain dharma arises, or is obtained, or is accomplished, or is achieved, or exercises a function; and "this" is called the cause of that dharma. Question: With what as forerunner? With what as establisher? By the coming-together of what? What dharma arises? Answer: With the "own seed" as forerunner; with the remaining supports, whether material or non-material — apart from the seed-support — and with "karma," as establisher; with "the accompanying aids and the object-support" as the coming-together — and then, each according to what befits it, the dharmas bound to the desire realm, bound to the form realm, bound to the formless realm, and unbound, arise. Question: With what as forerunner... what is obtained? Answer: With the lineage (gotra) of the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, or the Tathāgata as forerunner, with the "power of the inner portion" as establisher, and with the "power of the outer portion" as the coming-together — and then the nirvāṇa of "release from the bonds of affliction" is realized. ("The power of the inner portion" refers to inner wholesome dharmas such as correct attention and having few wants and contentment, as well as obtaining a human body, being born in a place where there is the holy dharma, having the sense-faculties unimpaired, having no karmic obstruction to one's undertakings, and giving rise to deep pure faith toward the good destinies and the like; "the power of the outer portion" refers to the buddhas appearing in the world, proclaiming the wondrous dharma, the teaching-dharma still surviving, those who dwell in the true dharma spreading it in accord, and those with compassion and faith acting as donors, and the like.) Question: ...what is accomplished? Answer: With "resolute conviction and delight toward what is to be known" as forerunner, with "thesis, reason, and example" (the three members of setting up a proof) as establisher, and with "an audience not hostile and an opponent skilled in questioning" as the coming-together — and then the thesis set up is accomplished. Question: ...what is achieved? Answer: With "the knowledge of craft" as forerunner, with "the diligent toil that follows upon it" as establisher, and with "the tools of the workplace of craft" as the coming-together — and then the workplace of craft is achieved; and again, with "craving" as forerunner, with "the reliance of one who dwells by food" as establisher, and with "the four foods" as the coming-together — and then the sentient being of a given birth gets to dwell and is fully achieved. Question: ...what function does it exercise? Answer: With the "own seed" as forerunner, with "this span of life" as establisher, and with "the conditions of this span of life" as the coming-together — and then the function of each dharma's own karmic force may be known. What is a dharma's own function? For instance, the eye has "seeing" as its function, and the functions of the remaining faculties may be known in the same way; again, earth can support, water can soften, fire can burn, and wind can dry — this class is the distinction of the own functions of external things.

(ii) The Basis of Cause and the Rest: fifteen in all — first, speech; second, feeling; third, habit-energy; fourth, moistened seed; fifth, cessation-without-interval; sixth, object-domain; seventh, faculty; eighth, action; ninth, personal effort; tenth, real insight; eleventh, accordance; twelfth, distinct capacity; thirteenth, coming-together; fourteenth, obstruction; fifteenth, non-obstruction.

(iii) The Distinction of Cause and the Rest: divided into ten causes, four conditions, and five fruits. The ten causes: first, the cause of what is spoken; second, the cause of what is observed-and-awaited; third, the cause that draws-in; fourth, the cause that gives rise; fifth, the cause that takes-up; sixth, the cause that brings forth; seventh, the cause of fixed distinction; eighth, the cause of joint-action; ninth, the cause of contrariety; tenth, the cause of non-contrariety. The four conditions: first, the causal condition; second, the immediately-antecedent condition; third, the object condition; fourth, the dominant condition. The five fruits: first, the fruit of maturation; second, the fruit of outflow; third, the fruit of release-from-bonds; fourth, the fruit of personal effort; fifth, the dominant fruit.

(iv) The Establishment of Cause and the Rest (how the ten causes are set up in dependence on the fifteen bases): In dependence on the basis "speech," the "cause of what is spoken" is set up — because toward dharmas bound to the three realms and dharmas unbound, names are first set up, and once names exist, "perception" arises, and perception being first, speech proceeds, and by speech one, in accord with seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, utters all sorts of statements; therefore, in dependence on the basis of speech, the cause of what is spoken is set up. In dependence on the basis "feeling," the "cause of what is observed-and-awaited" is set up — because among sentient beings, those who wish for the pleasure of the desire realm, the pleasure of the form and formless realms, or the unbound pleasure, all observe-and-await this (feeling), and toward all sorts of provisions either seek them out, or accumulate them, or enjoy them; and those who do not wish for suffering also observe-and-await this, and toward the conditions that bring on suffering either seek to keep away — therefore, in dependence on the basis of feeling, the cause of what is observed-and-awaited is set up. In dependence on the basis "habit-energy," the "cause that draws-in" is set up — because pure and impure karma perfumes the formations of the three realms, and thereupon, among the destinies loved and unloved, it draws in the loved and unloved self-body (the fruit-body of retribution), and again, by this dominant force, external things too flourish and decline accordingly — therefore, in dependence on the basis of the habit-energy of the pure and impure karma of the formations, the cause that draws-in is set up. In dependence on the basis "moistened seed," the "cause that gives rise" is set up — because the dharmas bound to the three realms each arise from their own seed, "craving" being called the moistener and the seed the moistened, and by this moistened seed the several self-bodies previously drawn-in come at once to arise (as the sūtra says, "karma is the cause that impels birth, craving is the cause that gives rise") — therefore, in dependence on the basis of moistened seed, the cause that gives rise is set up. In dependence on the bases "cessation-without-interval, object-domain, faculty, action, personal effort, and real insight," the "cause that takes-up" is set up — because the dharmas of the desire realm are taken up by cessation-without-interval, taken up by object-domain, taken up by faculty, taken up by action, taken up by personal effort, and so the formations turn (the dharmas of the form and formless realms likewise); or, taken up by real insight, the remaining unbound dharmas turn — therefore, in dependence on these six bases, the cause that takes-up is set up. In dependence on the basis "accordance," the "cause that brings forth" is set up — because a wholesome dharma of the desire realm can bring forth a still more excellent wholesome dharma of the desire realm, and can also bring forth wholesome dharmas of the form realm, the formless realm, and the unbound (because they accord with one another); a wholesome dharma of the form realm and a wholesome dharma of the formless realm likewise each bring forth a still more excellent wholesome dharma, up to bringing forth the realization of the unconditioned; and again an unwholesome dharma can bring forth a still more excellent unwholesome dharma (as greed can bring forth hatred, delusion, conceit, view, doubt, and the three evil conducts of body, speech, and mind — the rest by inference); and again a neutral dharma can bring forth wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral dharmas (as the seeds of the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the neutral are all stored in the store consciousness), and a neutral dharma can also bring forth a still more excellent neutral dharma (as morsel-food can bring forth a born sentient being, cause him to dwell, and increase his force, because it accords with him) — therefore, in dependence on the basis of accordance, the cause that brings forth is set up. In dependence on the basis "distinct capacity," the "cause of fixed distinction" is set up — because the dharmas bound to the three realms and the unbound each have a distinct capacity of their own, and so can give rise to all sorts of different capacities — therefore, in dependence on the basis of distinct capacity, the cause of fixed distinction is set up. In dependence on the basis "coming-together," the "cause of joint-action" is set up — because only by first obtaining the various comings-together for one's own arising does a dharma of the desire realm arise (the dharmas of the form and formless realms and the unbound likewise); as "birth" requires coming-together, so too do "obtaining, accomplishing, achieving, and function" — therefore, in dependence on the basis of coming-together, the cause of joint-action is set up. In dependence on the basis "obstruction," the "cause of contrariety" is set up — because when a dharma of the desire realm is about to arise, if an obstruction is present it cannot arise (the other realms likewise; and as with "birth," so with "obtaining, accomplishing, achieving, and function") — therefore, in dependence on the basis of obstruction, the cause of contrariety is set up. In dependence on the basis "non-obstruction," the "cause of non-contrariety" is set up — because when a dharma of the desire realm is about to arise, if no obstruction is present, then it arises (the other realms likewise; "obtaining, accomplishing, achieving, and function" likewise) — therefore, in dependence on the basis of non-obstruction, the cause of non-contrariety is set up.

Again: in dependence on the basis "seed-condition," the "causal condition" is set up; in dependence on the basis "cessation-without-interval condition," the "immediately-antecedent condition" is set up; in dependence on the basis "object-domain condition," the "object condition" is set up; in dependence on the remaining condition-bases, the "dominant condition" is set up. Again: in dependence on the two causal-condition bases "habit-energy" and "accordance," the "fruit of maturation" and the "fruit of outflow" are set up; in dependence on the causal-condition basis "real insight," the "fruit of release-from-bonds" is set up; in dependence on the causal-condition basis "personal effort," the "fruit of personal effort" is set up; in dependence on the remaining causal-condition bases, the "dominant fruit" is set up. Again: the meaning of "beneficial furtherance" is the meaning of cause; the meaning of "establishment" is the meaning of condition; the meaning of "bringing to completion" is the meaning of fruit.

Again, the "establishing cause" has five characteristics: first, the cause that can generate (that is, the cause that gives rise); second, the cause that is a means (that is, the remaining causes); third, the coexistent cause (that is, one part of the cause that takes-up, as the eye is to eye-consciousness, and the ear and the rest to the remaining consciousnesses, coexisting simultaneously); fourth, the cause that ceases-without-interval (that is, the cause that gives rise); fifth, the cause that ceased-long-ago (that is, the cause that draws-in). Again, the establishing cause has another five characteristics: first, the desirable cause; second, the undesirable cause; third, the cause of increase; fourth, the cause of flowing-forth (saṃsāra); fifth, the cause of returning-to-cessation (nirvāṇa). Again, the establishing cause has another seven characteristics: (1) only an impermanent dharma can be a cause; no permanent dharma can be a cause of any other dharma (whether the cause of arising, the cause of obtaining, the cause of accomplishing, the cause of achieving, or the cause of function); (2) although an impermanent dharma is a cause of an impermanent dharma, it is a cause for "another dharma," or a cause for "a later self," and not a cause for "the very self of the present instant"; (3) although it is a cause for another dharma and for a later self, it can be a cause only when "already arisen and not yet ceased," and not when it has not yet arisen or has already ceased; (4) although already arisen and not yet ceased, it can be a cause only when "the remaining aiding conditions have been obtained," and not when the aiding conditions are not obtained; (5) although the aiding conditions are obtained, it can be a cause only when "it has undergone alteration," and not when it has not altered; (6) although it has undergone alteration, it must "be joined with capacity" to be a cause, and not when it has lost its capacity; (7) although joined with capacity, it must further "correspond and accord with one another" to be a cause, and not when it does not correspond and accord. By these seven characteristics, each according to what befits it, the establishment of the various causes may be known.

有尋有伺等三地 · 相施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Characteristics

全文五層 →Full five layers →

白話Vernacular

五門的第二門。前一門「界」是把三地的範圍框出來，這一門「相」是專講「尋、伺」這兩樣心所本身的相狀。

開頭：尋伺的七種相

什麼叫「相施設建立」？提綱說：體、所緣、行相、等起、差別、決擇、流轉。要知道，尋伺的相大致有七種：第一體性、第二所緣、第三行相、第四等起、第五差別、第六決擇、第七流轉。

一、體性（尋伺各以什麼為本質）：尋，是對所緣「不深入推求」，以「思」這個心所為本質；伺，是對所緣「深入推求」，以「慧」這個心所為本質。

二、所緣（尋伺緣什麼）：尋伺所緣的，是依著名（名身）、詞句（句身）、字母（文身）所表的「義」（意思）。

三、行相（尋伺怎麼活動）：就在這同一個所緣上，「尋求」的那個樣子，就是尋；「伺察」的那個樣子，就是伺。

四、等起（尋伺帶起什麼）：尋伺一動，就帶起說話（發起語言）。

五、差別：有七種差別——有相、無相，一直到不染污，跟前面（意地說過的七分別）一樣。

六、決擇（尋伺和「分別」是不是一回事）：問——尋伺就是分別嗎？反過來，分別就是尋伺嗎？答：凡是尋伺，一定是分別；但有的分別不是尋伺。怎麼說？比起出世間的智慧來，其餘一切三界裡的心、心所都算「分別」，可它們不都是尋伺。（換句話說：尋伺是分別的一種，分別的範圍更大。）

七、流轉（尋伺在各道眾生身上怎麼運轉）：論用六個問題來問——地獄眾生的尋伺，是哪一種「行」（情緒走向）？接觸什麼境？引出什麼？跟什麼相應？在求什麼？帶動什麼作用？地獄這樣問，畜生、餓鬼、人、欲界天、初禪天的尋伺也都這樣問。答案是：

地獄的尋伺：一向是憂慼的走向，接觸的都是不可愛的境，引出來的都是苦，跟「憂」相應，老在求脫苦，帶動的是擾亂心的作用。地獄尋伺一向受苦，餓鬼的尋伺也是這樣。
畜生、人、大力餓鬼的尋伺：多半是憂慼走向、少分是欣悅走向；多半接觸不可愛境、少分接觸可愛境；多半引苦、少分引樂；多半跟憂相應、少分跟喜相應；多半求脫苦、少分求遇樂；帶動的還是擾亂心的作用。
欲界諸天的尋伺：多半是欣悅走向、少分憂慼；多半接觸可愛境、少分不可愛境；多半引樂、少分引苦；多半跟喜相應、少分跟憂相應；多半求遇樂、少分求脫苦；帶動的仍是擾亂心的作用。
初禪天的尋伺：一向是欣悅走向，一向接觸內在的可愛境界，一向引樂，一向跟喜相應，只求「不離開這個樂」，而且不再帶動擾亂心的作用（定心已靜，尋伺也不再擾心了）。

The second of the five gates. The preceding gate, "Realms" (界), framed out the scope of the three stages; this gate, "Characteristics" (相), speaks specifically of the very characteristics of the two mental factors "applied thought and sustained thought" (尋、伺) themselves.

Opening: The Seven Characteristics of Applied and Sustained Thought

What is "the designation of characteristics"? The rubric states them: essential nature, object, mode of apprehension, co-arising, distinctions, ascertainment, and coursing-about. One should know that the characteristics of applied and sustained thought are, broadly, of seven kinds: first, essential nature; second, object; third, mode of apprehension; fourth, co-arising; fifth, distinctions; sixth, ascertainment; seventh, coursing-about.

One, essential nature (what applied thought and sustained thought each take as their substance): applied thought is that which, toward its object, "does not search deeply," and takes the mental factor "volition" (思) as its substance; sustained thought is that which, toward its object, "searches deeply," and takes the mental factor "wisdom" (慧) as its substance.

Two, object (what applied and sustained thought take as object): what applied and sustained thought take as object is the "meaning" (the sense) expressed through the name (the name-body 名身), the phrase (the phrase-body 句身), and the letter (the letter-body 文身).

Three, mode of apprehension (how applied and sustained thought operate): upon this very same object, that manner of "searching" is applied thought; that manner of "examining" is sustained thought.

Four, co-arising (what applied and sustained thought bring up together with them): the moment applied and sustained thought stir, they bring up speech (they set language going).

Five, distinctions: there are seven kinds of distinction — with-marks, markless, on down to the undefiled — the same as before (the seven kinds of discernment stated in the Stage of the Mental).

Six, ascertainment (whether applied-and-sustained thought and "discernment" are one and the same thing): Question — are applied and sustained thought just discernment? And conversely, is discernment just applied and sustained thought? Answer: whatever is applied and sustained thought is necessarily discernment; but some discernment is not applied and sustained thought. How so? Measured against supramundane wisdom, all the remaining minds and mental factors within the three realms count as "discernment," yet they are not all applied and sustained thought. (In other words: applied and sustained thought are one kind of discernment; the scope of discernment is wider.)

Seven, coursing-about (how applied and sustained thought operate in the beings of the several destinies): the treatise asks with six questions — the applied and sustained thought of the beings of the hells is of which sort of "coursing" (emotional bent)? What object does it contact? What does it draw forth? With what is it associated? What is it seeking? What function does it set in motion? As it questions for the hells, so it questions likewise for the applied and sustained thought of animals, hungry ghosts, humans, the gods of the desire realm, and the gods of the first dhyāna. The answers are:

The applied and sustained thought of the hells: it is invariably a bent of grief; what it contacts is entirely unlovely objects; what it draws forth is entirely suffering; it is associated with "grief"; it is forever seeking release from suffering; and what it sets in motion is the function of disturbing the mind. The applied and sustained thought of the hells invariably undergoes suffering, and the applied and sustained thought of the hungry ghosts is likewise so.
The applied and sustained thought of animals, humans, and the mighty hungry ghosts: for the most part a bent of grief, and in small part a bent of gladness; for the most part contacting unlovely objects, in small part lovely objects; for the most part drawing forth suffering, in small part pleasure; for the most part associated with grief, in small part with joy; for the most part seeking release from suffering, in small part seeking to meet with pleasure; and what it sets in motion is still the function of disturbing the mind.
The applied and sustained thought of the gods of the desire realm: for the most part a bent of gladness, in small part of grief; for the most part contacting lovely objects, in small part unlovely ones; for the most part drawing forth pleasure, in small part suffering; for the most part associated with joy, in small part with grief; for the most part seeking to meet with pleasure, in small part release from suffering; what it sets in motion is still the function of disturbing the mind.
The applied and sustained thought of the gods of the first dhyāna: it is invariably a bent of gladness, invariably contacting the inner lovely states, invariably drawing forth pleasure, invariably associated with joy, seeking only "not to be parted from this pleasure," and moreover it no longer sets in motion the function of disturbing the mind (the mind of concentration being already still, applied and sustained thought no longer disturb the mind).

有尋有伺等三地 · 如理作意施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied and Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Attention in Accord with Principle

全文五層 →Full five layers →

白話Vernacular

五門的第三門。「如理作意」就是「合道理的用心、正確的思惟」。前一門講尋伺本身，這一門講跟「如理作意」相應的尋伺——也就是用對了方向的那種思量，會落實成哪些善行、福德。

開頭：如理作意相應尋伺的八項建立

什麼叫「如理作意施設建立」？提綱說：依處、事、求、受用、正行、兩種菩提資糧、到彼岸的方便。要知道，這大致由八項建立：一依處、二事、三求、四受用、五正行、六聲聞乘資糧方便、七獨覺乘資糧方便、八波羅蜜多（到彼岸）引發方便。

一、依處（如理作意相應尋伺，在哪些時機起）：有六種。一決定時（拿定主意時）、二止息時（停下歇息時）、三作業時（做事時）、四世間離欲時（修世間禪、伏欲時）、五出世離欲時（修出世道、斷欲時）、六攝益有情時（饒益眾生時）。

二、事（這種尋伺成辦哪些事）：有八種。一布施所成的福業作用、二持戒所成的福業作用、三修（定）所成的福業作用、四聞所成的事、五思所成的事、六其餘修所成的事、七簡擇（抉擇法義）所成的事、八饒益有情所成的事。

三、求（怎樣追求）：就像有一種人，不用非法的手段、也不用兇險的手段去求取財物。

四、受用（求得了怎麼用）：就像那個人求得財物以後，不被它染著、不停住其上、不耽戀、不被綁住、不昏迷、不貪著、也不死抓不放，反而深深看見它的過患、了知該怎麼出離，這樣去受用它。

五、正行（怎樣行事）：就像有一種人，懂得敬重父母、沙門、婆羅門以及家長等，對他們恭敬供養、利益承事；對今生來世所造的罪，看見極大的怖畏；於是行布施、作福業，受八關齋戒、持守戒律。

六、七、八、三乘的資糧方便：聲聞乘的資糧方便，到〈聲聞地〉裡我會詳細說；獨覺乘的資糧方便，到〈獨覺地〉裡詳說；波羅蜜多的引發方便，到〈菩薩地〉裡詳說。（這裡只標其名，內容留到後面三地展開。）

福德的展開：施者、受者、善友、果報

接著，論就「布施」這件事，把相關的人和事一項項列開——

施主的四種相：一有欲樂（樂意施）、二無偏黨（不偏心）、三除匱乏（解人之乏）、四具正智（施得有智慧）。持戒者的四種相：一有欲樂（樂於持戒）、二結橋梁（為人搭橋、不障人）、三不現行（不犯戒）、四具正智。成就修（定）者的四種相：一欲解清淨（願與勝解清淨）、二引攝清淨（所引攝的清淨）、三勝解定清淨（定中勝解清淨）、四智清淨。

受施的人有六種：一受學受施（為求學而受施）、二活命受施（為活命而受）、三貧匱受施（因貧乏而受）、四棄捨受施（已捨世間而受）、五羈遊受施（羈旅在外而受）、六耽著受施（因耽著而受）。

有八種損惱（眾生所受的苦惱）：一飢、二渴、三粗食、四疲倦、五寒、六熱、七無遮蔽、八有遮蔽（被遮障）。又有六種損惱：一俱生（天生就有的）、二所欲匱乏、三逼切（被逼迫）、四時節變異（冷熱無常）、五流漏（漏失）、六事業休廢（事情荒廢）。有六種攝益（饒益眾生的方式）：一任持攝益（給以資養）、二勇健無損攝益（令其健康無損）、三覆護攝益（遮護）、四塗香攝益（給塗香）、五衣服攝益（給衣）、六共住攝益（與之共住）。

四種不是好朋友的相：一不肯放下對你的怨心、二引你去做不愛之事（招你厭惡）、三遮斷你所愛之事、四引你去做不合宜的事。跟這四種相反的，就是四種好朋友的相。三種引攝（接引攝受）：一引攝資生用具、二引攝有喜樂（世間喜樂）、三引攝離喜樂（出世的離喜之樂）。

四種「隨轉供事」（隨順承事供養）：一隨順供事素不相識的人、二隨順供事親友、三隨順供事所尊重的人、四隨順供事有福有慧的人。由這四種隨順供事，依著四個「處」，能獲得五種果報。哪四個處？一無攝受處（對方不圖你回報）、二無侵惱處（不侵擾你）、三應供養處（值得供養）、四同分隨轉處（同類相隨）。依這四處，能感得五種果：一感得大財富、二名聲遠播、三遠離諸煩惱、四證得涅槃、五或往生善趣。

聰慧的人有三種聰慧相：一對善法肯領受奉行、二對善法能決定（不疑）、三對善法能堅固（不退）。又有三相：一受學增上戒（學戒）、二受學增上心（學定）、三受學增上慧（學慧）。

The third of the five gates. "Attention in accord with principle" means "a use of mind that accords with the principle, correct thinking." The gate before this spoke of applied and sustained thought in themselves; this gate speaks of the applied and sustained thought that is associated with "attention in accord with principle" — that is, the kind of pondering whose direction has been rightly set, which comes to fruition as which wholesome deeds and which merits.

Opening: The Eight Establishments of the Applied and Sustained Thought Associated with Attention in Accord with Principle

What is called "the designation of attention in accord with principle"? The rubric says: the ground of occurrence, the affair, the seeking, the enjoyment, the right conduct, the two provisions for enlightenment, and the means to the far shore. It should be known that this is established, roughly, under eight items: first, the ground of occurrence; second, the affair; third, the seeking; fourth, the enjoyment; fifth, the right conduct; sixth, the means of provision for the śrāvaka vehicle; seventh, the means of provision for the pratyekabuddha vehicle; eighth, the means for drawing forth the perfections (reaching the far shore).

One, the ground of occurrence (the occasions on which the applied and sustained thought associated with attention in accord with principle arises): there are six kinds. First, the time of resolving (when one settles one's mind on a course); second, the time of quieting (when one stops and rests); third, the time of doing work (when one performs a task); fourth, the time of worldly detachment from desire (when one cultivates worldly meditation and subdues desire); fifth, the time of supramundane detachment from desire (when one cultivates the supramundane path and severs desire); sixth, the time of benefiting sentient beings (when one enriches living beings).

Two, the affair (the affairs this applied and sustained thought accomplishes): there are eight kinds. First, the meritorious-deed function accomplished by giving; second, the meritorious-deed function accomplished by keeping precepts; third, the meritorious-deed function accomplished by cultivation (of meditation); fourth, the affair accomplished by hearing; fifth, the affair accomplished by reflection; sixth, the remaining affairs accomplished by cultivation; seventh, the affair accomplished by discernment (deciding the meaning of the Dharma); eighth, the affair accomplished by benefiting sentient beings.

Three, the seeking (how one pursues): it is like a certain kind of person who, in seeking wealth, uses neither unlawful means nor ferocious means to get it.

Four, the enjoyment (how one uses what has been sought): it is like that person who, after obtaining wealth, is not stained by it, does not settle upon it, is not besotted, is not bound, is not benighted, is not attached, and does not clutch it and refuse to let go, but rather deeply sees its danger and knows how to escape it, and so enjoys it.

Five, the right conduct (how one conducts one's affairs): it is like a certain kind of person who knows to revere father and mother, śramaṇas, brāhmaṇas, and the head of the household and the rest, offering them respect and support, benefit and service; who sees an extreme dread in the offenses committed for this life and the next; and who therefore practices giving and performs meritorious deeds, takes the eight-precept fast and keeps the precepts.

Six, seven, eight, the means of provision for the three vehicles: as for the means of provision for the śrāvaka vehicle, I will explain it in detail in the "Śrāvaka Stage"; as for the means of provision for the pratyekabuddha vehicle, it is explained in detail in the "Pratyekabuddha Stage"; as for the means for drawing forth the perfections, it is explained in detail in the "Bodhisattva Stage." (Here only their names are set down; the content is left to be unfolded in those later three stages.)

The Unfolding of Merit: Donor, Recipient, Good Friend, Reward

Next, taking up "giving" as its topic, the treatise lays out one by one the persons and affairs bound up with it —

The four marks of a donor: first, having the wish (being glad to give); second, having no partiality (not being biased); third, relieving want (relieving another's lack); fourth, being furnished with right knowledge (giving with wisdom). The four marks of one who keeps the precepts: first, having the wish (being glad to keep the precepts); second, forming a bridge (building a bridge for others, not obstructing them); third, non-transgression (not breaking the precepts); fourth, being furnished with right knowledge. The four marks of one who has accomplished cultivation (of meditation): first, the purity of aspiration and resolute conviction (the purity of vow and of resolute conviction); second, the purity of what is drawn in (the purity of what is drawn in and gathered); third, the purity of resolute conviction in concentration (the purity of resolute conviction within concentration); fourth, the purity of knowledge.

There are six kinds of person who receive a gift: first, receiving a gift for the sake of training (receiving a gift in order to train); second, receiving a gift for the sake of livelihood (receiving in order to live); third, receiving a gift out of want (receiving on account of poverty); fourth, receiving a gift as one who has renounced (receiving as one who has already forsaken the world); fifth, receiving a gift as a sojourner (receiving while traveling abroad); sixth, receiving a gift out of craving (receiving on account of attachment).

There are eight kinds of affliction (the pains that sentient beings undergo): first, hunger; second, thirst; third, coarse food; fourth, weariness; fifth, cold; sixth, heat; seventh, being without shelter; eighth, being shut in (being obstructed). Again there are six kinds of affliction: first, the innate (what is present from birth); second, the lack of what is wished for; third, the pressing (being coerced); fourth, the changing of the seasons (the inconstancy of cold and heat); fifth, the leaking-away (loss by outflow); sixth, the ceasing and lapsing of one's undertakings (affairs left to waste). There are six kinds of benefaction (the ways of enriching sentient beings): first, the benefaction of sustaining (giving nourishment and support); second, the benefaction of vigor without harm (making them healthy and unharmed); third, the benefaction of covering and protecting (shielding); fourth, the benefaction of anointing perfume (giving perfume to anoint); fifth, the benefaction of clothing (giving clothes); sixth, the benefaction of dwelling together (dwelling together with them).

The four marks of one who is not a good friend: first, not being willing to lay down his rancor toward you; second, drawing you into doing what is unloved (inducing your disgust); third, cutting off what you love; fourth, drawing you into doing what is unfitting. The reverse of these four marks is the four marks of a good friend. The three kinds of drawing-in (receiving and gathering in): first, drawing in the goods that support life; second, drawing in that which has joy and pleasure (worldly joy and pleasure); third, drawing in the pleasure apart from joy (the supramundane pleasure that is apart from joy).

The four kinds of "attending and serving in accord" (attending upon and serving in accord and offering support): first, attending and serving in accord upon one who is a stranger; second, attending and serving in accord upon a kinsman and friend; third, attending and serving in accord upon one who is revered; fourth, attending and serving in accord upon one who has merit and wisdom. By these four kinds of attending and serving in accord, resting upon four "grounds," one can obtain five kinds of reward. Which four grounds? First, the ground of no appropriation (where the other does not look to you for return); second, the ground of no aggrievement (where he does not intrude upon you); third, the ground worthy of support (where he is worthy of offerings); fourth, the ground of like-kind mutual accord (where like follows like). Resting on these four grounds, one can call forth five fruits: first, calling forth great wealth; second, a good name spread far; third, being far removed from the afflictions; fourth, realizing nirvāṇa; fifth, or being reborn in a good destiny.

One who is astute has three marks of astuteness: first, being willing to receive and carry out the wholesome dharmas; second, being able to be decided about the wholesome dharmas (without doubt); third, being able to be firm about the wholesome dharmas (without backsliding). Again there are three marks: first, taking up the training in the higher discipline (training in the precepts); second, taking up the training in the higher mind (training in concentration); third, taking up the training in the higher wisdom (training in wisdom).

有尋有伺等三地 · 不如理作意施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Establishment of Attention Contrary to Principle

全文五層 →Full five layers →

白話Vernacular

五門的第四門，跟第三門「如理作意」正好相反。「不如理作意」就是「用錯方向的思惟」，它會結出種種錯誤的見解。論在這裡，用「十六種異論」（十六派外道的錯誤主張）當標本，一派一派地：先擺出他們的主張、再說他們憑什麼這樣主張（憑師承的教、憑自己的推理），最後用道理一條一條破。

開頭：十六種異論

什麼叫「不如理作意施設建立」？提綱說：執因中有果、顯了、有去來、我、常、宿作因、自在等、害法、邊無邊、矯亂、計無因、斷、空、最勝、淨、吉祥——共十六種異論。用這十六種異論的差別，就能看出什麼是「不如理作意」。哪十六種？一因中有果論、二從緣顯了論、三去來實有論、四計我論、五計常論、六宿作因論、七計自在等為作者論、八害為正法論、九有邊無邊論、十不死矯亂論、十一無因見論、十二斷見論、十三空見論、十四妄計最勝論、十五妄計清淨論、十六妄計吉祥論。

一、因中有果論（果早就藏在因裡）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，主張：在任何時候、永遠地，「因」裡面早就具足了「果」的性質。（這是「雨眾外道」——數論派——的計執。）問：他們憑什麼這樣主張？答：憑「教」和「理」。「教」，是他們先師留下的教典，一代代傳到今天，說因中本來就有果。「理」，是這種人天性愛尋思、愛觀察，卻只停在凡夫的尋思地，於是這樣想：既然從「這個東西」能生出「那個東西」，世間就公認「這個」是「那個」的因；求果的人也只取這個因、不取別的；做事也只在這個因上下功夫；那個果也只從這個因生、不從別處生——所以果在因裡早就有了。要不然的話，就該說「一切都是一切的因」、求一個果該取一切、該在一切上下功夫、一切果該從一切生（那就亂套了）。

該仔細反問他：你到底主張什麼？什麼是因的相？什麼是果的相？因相和果相，是同還是不同？如果因果兩相沒有差別，那就沒有因、果這兩種分別了——既無分別，「因中有果」就講不通。如果因果兩相有差別，那你說：因裡的果性，是「還沒生」的相、還是「已經生」的相？如果是還沒生的相，那因裡的果既然還沒生，卻說它「有」，講不通；如果是已經生的相，那果體既然已經生了，卻又說它從因生，講不通。所以因裡並不是先有果；只是要有因、再等緣具足，果才生。再說，一個有相的法，要在另一個有相的法裡被認出來，得靠五種情形：一在處所裡找得到（像甕裡的水）、二在所依裡找得到（像眼裡的眼識）、三靠它自己的相就認得（像因的自體，不用比度）、四靠它自己的作用認得、五因變了果也跟著變、或緣變了果也跟著變。可你說的「永遠地因中有果」，這五種情形一個都對不上。所以這派主張講不通——不管說因果不異、說因果異、說果未生、說果已生，都講不通。

二、從緣顯了論（果本來就有，只是被緣「顯」出來）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，主張：一切法的體性本來就有，只是「被眾緣顯現出來」，並不是「從緣生出來」。（這是因中有果論者、以及「聲相論者」的計執。）問：因中有果論者憑什麼說因裡先有果、只是從緣顯出？答：也憑教和理。教如前說。理是：他這樣想——果如果先就有、卻又說從因生，講不通；可造果又確實要下功夫，那下功夫幹嘛？豈不就是為了「把果顯出來」？於是立了「顯了論」。

該反問他：你主張什麼？是「沒有遮障的緣」卻有遮障、還是「有遮障的緣」？如果說沒有遮障的緣卻有遮障，講不通；如果說有遮障的緣，那麼屬於果的那個因，為什麼不被遮障？（因和果同樣是「有」啊。）講不通。打個比方：黑暗能遮住甕裡的水，也能遮住甕本身。你若說遮障也遮住了因，那就該連因也一起顯出來（因果都被遮嘛）；可你偏說只顯因裡的果、不顯因，講不通。再問：是「有性」當遮障的緣、還是「果性」當遮障的緣？如果是「有性」當遮障，那「有」就該永遠顯不出來（講不通，因也是「有」，怎麼不遮）；如果是「果性」當遮障，那同一個東西又是因又是果（像芽是種子的果、又是莖的因），就成了同一法又顯又不顯，講不通。再問，隨你回答：本來的法和「顯」，是同還是不同？如果不同（同一回事），那法就該永遠顯、顯了又顯，講不通；如果說不同（兩回事），那這個「顯」是無因的、還是有因的？說無因而顯，講不通；說有因，那能顯的是果性、不是因性——用「不顯因的東西」去顯果，講不通。所以你說的「法性若無就無相、法性若有就有相；無就顯不出、有才顯得出」——講不通。我現在告訴你：東西雖然「有」，也未必當下取得到相——或因為太遠（雖有而取不到）、或被四種障礙障住、或太細微、或心散亂、或諸根壞了、或還沒得到認它的相應智，所以取不到。並不是「取不到就等於沒有、要顯了才算有」。（這也順帶破了「聲相論者」——他們主張「聲的相常住、不生不滅，只是靠發音才顯出來」，跟顯了論一樣講不通。）

三、去來實有論（過去未來像現在一樣實有）

有一種沙門、婆羅門、或在佛法中而思惟不正的人，主張：有過去、有未來，它們的相都成就，像現在一樣，是實有、不是假的。（這是「說一切有部」的計執。）問：憑什麼？答：憑教和理。在佛法中的人，是把如來經錯解了——像經說「一切有，就是十二處」，他就以為這十二處實相是有；又佛說「有過去業」、「有過去色、有未來色」乃至識也如此。理是：他想——一個法若有自相安住，它就真實是有；這法若未來時是無，那時就該還沒有相；若過去時是無，那時就該失了自相；那樣的話諸法自相就不成立了——所以過去未來是實有。

該反問他：去、來二相和現在相，是一還是異？如果說相是一，那「三世」的分別就立不起來，講不通；如果說相異，那過去未來「實有」就講不通。又問：墮在三世的法，是「常」相還是「無常」相？如果是常相，卻墮在三世（有變遷），講不通；如果是無常相，卻在三世中永遠實有，講不通。再問，隨你答——你是怎麼想的：(一)未來法「跑來」現在嗎？(二)還是它在未來死了、在現在生？(三)還是它住在未來、拿它當緣而生現在？(四)還是它本來沒有作用、現在才有作用？(五)還是它本來相不圓滿、現在才圓滿？(六)還是它本來是別的相、現在是另一種相？(七)還是未來裡就有現在的成分？逐一破：(一)若未來法跑來現在，那它就有了方位、又跟現在沒差別、又該是常，講不通；(二)若在未來死了現在生，那未來就不生於今、現在法本無今生、又未來還沒生卻說它死沒了，講不通；(三)若住未來、當緣生現在，那它該是常、又該本無今生、不是未來法生，講不通；(四)若本無作用今有作用，那就是「本無今有」，有前面說的過失，講不通——而且再問：這「作用」跟那本法是「有異相」、還是「無異相」？若有異相，這作用相在未來時是無的，講不通；若無異相，那「本無作用、今有作用」講不通。(五)相圓滿、(六)異相、(七)未來有現在分這三種，同樣照這麼破。差別在：還多一個「自性雜亂」的過失，講不通。如同未來奔向現在這樣破，現在墮入過去，也照樣這麼破。綜合而言，無論從自相、共相、來至、死沒、作緣而生、業用、相圓滿、相變異，或未來含有現在分來說，主張過去未來之體實有，都不合道理。

接著有人反難：如果過去未來是無，怎麼能「緣著無」而起認識？若能緣無而起認識，豈不違背「一切有就是十二處」的教？該反問：世間「取無」的認識（像認得「無我、兔角、石女兒」），是起、還是不起？如果不起，那取無我等的認識都該沒有，這講不通；佛也說「我的無諂聲聞，有就知有、無就知無」。如果說起，那這取無的認識，是作「有」的行相、還是作「無」的行相？若作有的行相，那「取無的覺卻作有的行相」，講不通；若作無的行相，那再問：這無行的覺，是「緣著有的事而轉」、還是「緣著無的事而轉」？緣有事而轉，那「無行的覺卻緣有事」，講不通；緣無事而轉，那「沒有所緣就沒有覺」，講不通。又：經雖說「一切有就是十二處」，但那是「對有法、密意說它有有相；對無法、密意說它有無相」——有相法持有相、無相法持無相，都叫法、都叫有，並不是說過去未來實有。若不如此理解，修行者就只能知道有、不能知道無，無法作無間觀所應知道的法，這也講不通。又「有過去業」，是依「習氣」密意假說為有——諸行中曾有淨不淨業生滅，由此那一串行特別地相續而轉，這叫習氣，靠這習氣才生愛、不愛的果，所以「過去業」是依習氣假說，我沒過失，你才講不通。又「有過去色、未來色、現在色」乃至識，是依三種行相密意說的：依「因相」密意說有未來、依「自相」密意說有現在、依「果相」密意說有過去，所以無過。又：不該說過去未來是實有相。為什麼？應知未來有十二種相：一因所顯相、二體未生相、三待眾緣相、四已生種類相、五可生法相、六不可生法相、七未生雜染相、八未生清淨相、九應可求相、十不應求相、十一應觀察相、十二不應觀察相。現在也有十二種相：一果所顯相、二體已生相、三眾緣會相、四已生種類相、五一剎那相、六不復生法相、七現雜染相、八現清淨相、九可憙樂相、十不可憙樂相、十一應觀察相、十二不應觀察相。過去也有十二種相：一已度因相、二已度緣相、三已度果相、四體已壞相、五已滅種類相、六不復生法相、七靜息雜染相、八靜息清淨相、九應顧戀處相、十不應顧戀處相、十一應觀察相、十二不應觀察相。——這些都是「相」的施設，不是實有體。

四、計我論（有一個實在常住的「我」）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，主張：有「我、薩埵（有情）、命者、生者、養育者、數取趣者」，這些是真實常住的。（外道的計執。）問：憑什麼？答：憑教和理。理有兩條：一是「先沒思量、忽然就生起有情的覺受」，二是「先思量過、才能有所作為」。他想：若沒有我，看見五種事就不該起五種「有我」的覺——一看見色形，只該起「色」的覺，不該起「有情（薩埵）」的覺；二看見隨苦樂的行，只該起「受」的覺，不該起「優劣的有情」覺；三看見已經立名、與名字相應的行，只該起「想」的覺，不該起「剎帝利、婆羅門、吠舍、戍陀羅、佛授、德友」等有情覺；四看見淨不淨相應的行，只該起「行」的覺，不該起「愚者、智者」的有情覺；五看見識隨境轉，只該起「心」的覺，不該起「我能見」等有情覺。既然沒有預先思量，對這五事仍忽然只起五種有情覺，而不只是起諸行的覺，他便斷定實有一個我。又想：若沒有我，就不該在諸行裡先起思量、才有所作——像「我要用眼看色、正在看色、已經看過色」，或又起念「我不應當看」，這些作用都是以「我覺」為先導的；耳、鼻、舌、身、意也都如此；善業的造作與止息、不善業的造作與止息，也都以思量之覺為先才有作用——所以有我。

現在反問你，隨你答：你是「就在所見的事上」起有情覺、還是「離開所見的事」另起有情覺？如果就在所見的事（色等）上起，那你不該說「在色等上計有我、有情，是顛倒覺」（因為那就是色等本身）；如果離開所見的事另起，那「我」就有了形量、有優劣、有剎帝利等、有愚智、能取色等境——這些講不通（離了色等哪來這些）。又問：是「只由這法自體」起這覺、還是「也由別的體」起？只由此法自體起，那「在所見上起我覺」就不該叫顛倒；也由別體起，那就成了「一切境界都是一切境界的覺因」，講不通。又問：對「無情」起有情覺、對「有情」起無情覺、對「別的有情」起「另一有情」的覺，會不會起？如果會起，那無情該是有情、有情該是無情，講不通；如果不會起，那你就是否定現量了，講不通。又問：這有情覺是取「現量」的義、還是取「比量」的義？取現量，可現量只有色等蘊、「我」不是現量，講不通；取比量，可像愚兒還不會推度也忽然起我覺，講不通。

又問：世間的所作，是以「覺」為因、還是以「我」為因？以覺為因，那「執我能作」講不通；以我為因，可又說「要先思量才有所作」，講不通。又問：所作事的因是常還是無常？無常，那這因有變異、「執我有作」講不通；常，那無變異、「無變而有作」講不通。又問：是「有動作的我」能作、還是「無動作的我」能作？有動作的我能作，那就該永遠在作、不必再作；無動作的我能作，那「無動作性卻有所作」講不通。又問：是有因才有所作、還是無因？有因，那這我得靠別的因策動才能作，講不通（那我就不自在了）；無因，那該一切時作一切事，講不通。又問：這我是依自己能作、還是依他能作？依自己，那這我自己造老病死苦、雜染等事，講不通；依他，那「計我所作」講不通。

又反問你：「我」是「就在五蘊上施設」、是「在諸蘊之中」、是「蘊外別處」、還是「不屬於蘊」？就在蘊上施設，那我和蘊就沒差別，卻說有個真實常住的我，講不通；在諸蘊之中，那這我是常還是無常？常，那常住的我被苦樂損益，講不通；若無損益，又起不了善法與非法，那諸蘊身便應畢竟不生，而且不用任何功用，我就應常得解脫，講不通。若我無常，那麼離開蘊體，另有一個生滅、相續、流轉的法，根本不可得，講不通；況且若它在此處滅壞，後來又在別處不經造作而得，便有極大的過失。若我在蘊外別處，那你計的我就成了無為法，講不通；若我不屬於蘊，那我就應一切時都沒有染污，而且我與身不應相屬，也講不通。

又問：你計的我，是「就是見者等的相」（見者、聞者等能見能聞的那個）、還是「離見者等的相」？如果「就是見者等的相」，那是「就在見、聞等上假立見者等」、還是「離開見、聞等另立見者等」？若是「就在見等上假立」，那見等本身就是見者等了，可你卻把「我」立為見者等，講不通（因為見者等和見等沒差別，那「我」就等於見等、不是另一個常實的我）；若是「離見等另立」，那這見等法是「我所造的業」、還是「我所用的器具」？

若說見等是「我所造的業」：若像種子（種子生芽），那我就該是無常的，講不通（你說我是常）；若像陶師造瓶、是「假立的丈夫」，那我就該是無常、是假立的，可你說我是常是實，講不通；若像有神通的人假立丈夫、對所作隨意自在，那我也該是無常假立，跟前面一樣講不通；若像「地」，那也該是無常，而且你計的我並沒有像地大那樣顯著的作用——世間地大的作用看得見（能托住萬物不墜落），你的我卻沒有這種看得見的作用，講不通；若像「虛空」，那就該不是實有——「虛空」只是「在沒有色的地方假立的」，可虛空雖是假有，還有分明可見的作用（靠虛空才能起往來屈伸等動作），你的我連這個都沒有，講不通。所以「見等是我所造的業」，講不通。

若說見等是「我所用的器具」：若像鐮刀（用鐮割物），可離開鐮刀、別的東西也有能割的作用，而離開見等、在別的東西上卻找不到見等的作用，講不通；若像火（用火燒物），那就是白計一個我了——因為世間的火，離開「能燒的人」自己就能燒，講不通。若說「離開見者等的相另有個我」，那你計的我就違背一切量（現量比量都證不到），講不通。

再問：你計的我，是「跟染淨相應才有染淨」、還是「不跟染淨相應卻有染淨」？若跟染淨相應才有，那諸行中本就有疾疫災橫（染）和它們的止息順益（淨）可得，可見諸行雖然沒有我、也說得上有染淨相應（像外物如此，內身也如此，沒有我而染淨義照樣成立），所以你計的我講不通；若不跟染淨相應卻有染淨，那「離開染淨的相、我卻有染淨」，講不通。又問：你計的我，是「跟流轉相相應才有流轉」、還是「不相應卻有流轉和止息」？若跟流轉相相應才有，那諸行中本就有五種流轉相可得——一有因、二可生、三可滅、四展轉相續生起、五有變異；既然諸行（像身、芽、河、燈、車這些）在流轉作用中雖無有我、自己就有流轉和止息，何必計個我？若不跟流轉相相應卻有流轉止息，那「我沒有流轉相、卻有流轉止息」，講不通。又問：你計的我，是「由境界所生的苦樂、由思業、由煩惱隨煩惱等的變異」才說它是受者、作者、解脫者、還是「不由那變異」？若由那變異，那就是諸行（受變異）在當受者作者解脫者，何必計我？就算說那是我，我也該是無常了，講不通；若不由那變異，那「我沒有變異、卻是受者作者解脫者」，講不通。又問：是「只在我上說作者」、還是「也在別的法上說作者」？若只在我上說，那世間就不該說「火是能燒的」「光是能照的」（火、光也被當成作者）；若也在別的法上說，那就在見等諸根上說作者好了，白白多計一個我，講不通。又問：是「只在我上建立我」、還是「也在別的法上建立我」？若只在我上建立，那世間就不該對那「假設的士夫之身」叫他「德友、佛授」（那些名都安在五蘊身上）；若也在別的法上建立，那就只是「在諸行上假說名我」罷了，何必另執一個我？為什麼？世間人只是在假設的士夫身上起「有情」的想、立「有情」的名，並說有自他的差別而已。又問：計我的見是善還是不善？是善，那為什麼極愚癡的人不用方便、忽然就起我見、還令眾生怕解脫、增長種種惡？講不通（善法哪會這樣）；是不善，那就不該說它「正、非顛倒」；既是邪僻顛倒之見，所計之我便不可能真實有體。又問：無我的見是善還是不善？是善，那在「常住實有的我」上見「沒有我」竟是善（顛倒卻善）講不通；是不善，可一切智者宣說它、精勤修它能令眾生不怕解脫、速證清淨果、對治諸惡——說它不善講不通。又問：是「我性自己就計有我」、還是「由我見才計有我」？若我性自己就計有我，那就該一切時都沒有「無我」的覺（可人明明能起無我覺）；若由我見才計，那雖然沒有實我，只是由我見的力量、在諸行裡妄認為有我罷了——所以你斷定實有我，講不通。這樣，從「不曾思量為先就起那覺」、從「思量為先才見有所作」、從「在諸蘊上假施設」、從「依那相安立為有」、從「建立染淨」、從「建立流轉止息」、從「假立受者作者解脫者」、從「施設有作者」、從「施設言說」、從「施設見」——種種來看，計有實我都講不通。

最後論說「第一義的我相」：所謂「我」，只是在諸法上「假立為有」，並不是實有個我；這假我也不可說跟諸法是異還是不異（別以為它是實有體、或諸法就是我的相）。這假我是無常相、非恒相、不可安保相、變壞相、生起法相、老病死相，只是諸法相、只是苦惱相。所以佛說：「比丘當知！在諸法中假立有我，這我無常無恒、不可安保、是變壞法。」之所以要假立「有我」，有四個原因：一為了世間說話方便、二為了隨順世間、三為了破除「決定無我」的怖畏、四為了宣說自他成就功德過失、令人起決定的信解。所以執著有實我，講不通。

五、計常論（我和世間都常住）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，主張：我和世間都是真實常住的，不是誰造的、不是誰變化的，不可損壞，積聚而住，像「伊師迦草」（一種堅韌的草）。（計前際「一切常」「一分常」的、計後際「有想」「無想」「非想非非想」的，還有計「極微常住」的，都這樣計。）問：憑什麼說我和世間常住？這裡計前際的，或是依下品、中品、上品靜慮起了「宿命隨念」（回憶前世），卻不善了知緣起，只憑回憶過去諸行而不如實知，就把過去世當作前際、發起常見；或依天眼把現在世當作前際，對諸行剎那生滅流轉不如實知，又見諸識流轉相續，從這一世到另一世從不斷絕，就發起常見；或見梵王隨意成立萬物，或見四大種變異，或見諸識變異，也由此執常。計後際的，對「想」和「受」雖見差別、卻不見它們各自體相的差別，就發起我與世間常住之見。計極微常的，依世間靜慮起見，因不如實知緣起，以為「先有因、後有果集起；先離散、後有果壞滅」，於是說從眾多極微體性聚成粗物之果、再把粗物逐漸分析到極微為止——所以粗物無常、極微是常。

（計前際後際常住，其實都歸到「我執」的差別相，我執已破，這也跟著破了。）又反問：你那「宿命隨念」，憶的是「諸蘊」還是「我」？憶的是蘊，那「執我和世間常」講不通；憶的是我，可你憶的是「過去有如此名字、如此姓氏的有情，我曾在那裡也有如此名字、如此姓氏」乃至其餘廣說，明明所憶是有名有姓的諸蘊，卻說憶到常我，講不通。又問：當眼識緣現前和合的色境而起時，那些不現前、不和合的其餘諸識，是滅了、還是轉成這個了？說滅，那滅壞的識卻計為常，講不通；說轉，那就成了只依一個境界，在一切時中一切識都應生起，講不通。又問：你執的我，由「想」所作、由「受」所作，有沒有變異？說有，那「我和世間常住」講不通；說無，可人明明先有一想，後來又有種種想，又有小想與無量想；受也先有純粹的樂，後來又有純粹的苦，又有苦樂相雜，也有不苦不樂。想與受如此變化，卻說我沒有變異，講不通。

論這裡也把幾種相關的計執一併點出：若計「命就是身」的，是計我為色；若計「命異於身」的，是計我為非色；若計「我遍一切、無二無缺」的，是計我亦色亦非色；若為對治這個、只換句換字而起執的，是計我非色非非色。又：若只見少分色、少分非色的，計「有邊」；若見它無量的，計「無邊」；若遍見、而色分少非色分無量（或色分無量非色分少）的，計「亦有邊亦無邊」；若為對治這個、只換文不換義而起執的，計「非有邊非無邊」；或計解脫的我遠離有邊無邊二種。

再破「極微常住」。反問他：你是「觀察過」才計極微常、還是「沒觀察」就計常？沒觀察，那離開智慧觀察就斷定它常，講不通；若說觀察過了，那它違背種種量（現量比量都證不到極微常），講不通。又問：你是「因為極微細」才計它常、還是「因為它跟粗果物的相不同」才計常？若因為細，那越離散、越減損、越羸弱，卻說它常，講不通；若因為相不同，那極微就超出了地水火風的相、跟它們不同類，卻說能生那一類的果（粗物），講不通——而且極微再沒有別的相可得，講不通。又問：從極微所起的粗物，跟極微是「不異相」、還是「異相」？若不異相，那它跟極微這個因沒差別、也該是常，就成了沒有因果決定，講不通；若異相，那粗物是「從離散的極微」生、還是「從聚集的極微」生？從離散，那該一切時一切果都生（沒因果決定），講不通；從聚集，那粗果物生時，是「不超過極微的形質量」、還是「超過」？不超過，那「從有形質分的東西生出有形質分的東西」（量沒增）講不通；超過，可極微體沒有細分、不能再分，那所生的粗物也該是常，講不通。若又說「有些極微本無今起」，那「計極微常」就講不通了。又問：極微起造粗物，是「像種子」、還是「像陶師」？像種子，那就該像種子一樣是無常；像陶師，那極微就該有思慮（像陶師會想），講不通；若既不像種子也不像陶師，那就找不到同喻，講不通。又問：外物的生起，是「由有情」、還是「不由」？由有情，那外面的粗物由有情生、所依的細物（極微）卻不由有情，講不通（誰給極微定的功能）；不由有情，那「沒有用處、外物卻生」，講不通。所以「極微常住」也講不通。

這樣，憑「回憶諸蘊有情、一境界一切識相續不斷、想受變不變」而計前際後際常住的，都講不通；憑「觀察不觀察、共相自相、起造、根本所用」而計極微常的，也都講不通。所以計常論講不通。論末說「常住之相」該怎麼講：若一切時無變異、一切種無變異、自然無變異、由他也無變異，又無生——這才是常住的相（而這正是無為法，不是外道計的那個我與世間）。

六、宿作因論（一切苦都是前世業所招，靠苦行消舊業）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說（其餘如經廣說）：世間一切士夫、補特伽羅所受的苦，全都以前世所造的業為因；由勤奮精進、修行苦行而「吐掉舊業」，又由現在不造新業這個因來損害新業，這樣在後來就不再有漏。因為往後一向都是善，所以說後來無漏；因為無漏，所以業盡；因為業盡，所以苦盡；因為苦盡，所以證得苦的邊際，也就是其餘生中相續之苦的窮盡。這是「無繫外道」——尼乾子、耆那教——的計執。問：他們因何生起這種見解、建立這種論說？答：由教與理。教如前面所說。理是：這類人天性愛好尋思、愛好觀察，乃至如前廣說；他看見現法中士夫的作用不決定：有些人雖具備正確方便，卻招致痛苦；有些人雖具備邪僻方便，反而得到安樂。他便想：假若現法中士夫的作用是苦的原因，那麼這些結果便應當顛倒；然而自己所見並非顛倒，所以一切苦必定都以前世所作為因。由這種道理，他生起此見，建立此論。

該反問他：由現法方便所招致的痛苦，是以前世所作為因，還是以現法的方便為因？若以前世所作為因，你先前所說「由勤奮精進吐掉舊業，現在新業由不造作之因所損害，這樣在後來不再有漏」乃至其餘廣說，就講不通；因為現前苦行之苦既只是舊業的果，現在的苦行便不能吐掉舊業。若以現法方便為因，你先前所說「世間一切士夫、補特伽羅所受的一切苦，都以前世所作為因」就講不通。這樣，無論主張現法方便之苦以前世所作為因，或以現法士夫的作用為因，都與他的總論相違，所以此論不是如理之說。

論接著說明如實的因相。第一，有些痛苦只以前世所作為因，例如有人由自己業力的增上作用，生到各種惡趣，或生於貧窮之家。第二，有些痛苦由混雜的因所生，例如有人因邪僻地事奉國王，不但未得樂果，反而招致痛苦；如事奉國王一樣，由各種言說、商賈等業，由從事農業、劫盜之業，或對其他有情作損害之事，有福的人獲得富貴安樂，無福的人即使付出功用也不能如願得果。第三，有些法純由現在的功用為因而得，例如新造能引後有的業，或聽聞正法而於法覺察，或發起行住坐臥等威儀業路，或修學各種工巧業處。這些種類，只以現在士夫的功用為因。

七、計自在等為作者論（大自在天等造一切）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說：世間一切士夫、補特伽羅所受的一切，全都以「大自在天的變化」為因，或以「其他丈夫之神的變化」為因。這是「自在等不平等因論者」的計執。問：他們因何生起此見、建立此論？答：由教與理。教如前說。理是：有人天性愛好尋思、愛好觀察，乃至如前廣說；他現前看見世間有情在因果中「不隨自己的願望而轉」——在因位想修淨業，不能如願，反而作惡；在果位想生善趣安樂世界，不能如願，反墮惡趣；心想受樂，不能如願，反而受苦。由此他想：世間萬物必定另有一個作者、生者與變化者，作為萬物的「父」，那就是大自在天或其他神。

現在反問他（提綱：功能、無體性、攝不攝、有用無用、為因、成過失）：大自在天的變化功能，是「以業方便為因」、還是「無因」？以業方便為因，那「只有這功能靠業方便為因、別的世間物卻不靠」，講不通；無因，那「只有這功能無因而有、世間物卻不是」，講不通。又問：大自在是「墮在世間裡」、還是「不墮」？墮在世間裡，那它就同於世法，卻能遍生世間，講不通；不墮，那它就是解脫了，卻說能生世間，講不通。又問：它是「有用」才變生世間、還是「無用」？有用，那它對那「用」就不自在了，卻說對世間自在，講不通；無用，那無所須卻生世間，講不通。又問：所生的世間，是「只以大自在為因」、還是「也取別的為因」？只以大自在為因，那麼有大自在時就有出生，有出生時也就有大自在；二者既同時存在，卻又說出生以大自在為因，講不通。若說還要取別的因，這別因是只取「樂欲」，還是除樂欲外更取其他因？若只取樂欲為因，再問：這樂欲只以大自在為因，還是也取其他因？若只以大自在為因，那麼有大自在時就有樂欲，有樂欲時也就有大自在，如此應當從無始以來恆常都有出生，講不通。若說樂欲還取其他因，那個其他因根本不可得，也講不通。況且，大自在對自己的樂欲尚且不能自在，卻說它對世間萬物能夠自在，也講不通。這樣，由變化功能、攝或不攝世間、有用或無用、能否作因等各方面來看，都不合道理；所以這派所立的論不是如理之說。

八、害為正法論（祭祀殺生能生天）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說：祭祀時先行咒術，再殺害生命，那麼能主持祭祀的人、被殺害的人與各種助伴，全都可以生天。問：這些外道因何生起此見、建立此論？答：這本是違背道理、由諂媚欺誑所生的論，不是由觀察道理而建立。到了鬥諍的惡劫生起時，婆羅門違越古昔婆羅門之法，為了想吃肉，才妄起這種計執。

該反問他：這套咒術祭法，本身是「法（善）」、還是「非法（惡）」？是善的自體，那「離開殺生就感不到自己愛的果、卻能把非法轉成正法」，講不通；是惡的自體，那「自己是招不愛果的法、卻能轉掉別的不愛果法」，講不通。他若救說「像世間的毒，被咒術一攝就不能害人，這咒術也一樣」。該反問：這咒術能止外面的毒，也能止內裡的貪瞋癡毒嗎？能止，那就該在任何地方、任何時候都能找到貪瞋癡已止息的人，事實卻不可得，講不通；不能止，那你說的「像咒能止毒、也能止非法業」就講不通。又問：這咒功能是「遍行」、還是「不遍行」？遍行，那自己所愛的親人怎麼不先拿去祭？講不通；不遍，那這功能就不決定，講不通。又問：這咒只轉因、還是也轉果？只轉因，對果無能，講不通；也轉果，那該把羊當下變成可愛妙色、何必捨掉羊身以後才取得天身，講不通。又問：造這咒的人，有沒有能力和悲愍？有，那為何離開殺害生命，便不能把被殺者送往天上？講不通；無，那沒有能力與悲愍的人所造之咒竟能成辦此事，也講不通。這樣，從所依之因、所舉譬喻、功能不決定、對果無能與造咒者等方面來看，都不合道理。論末說「非法之相」：凡是損他而不能對治現前過患的業、修道者共同知道會招感不可愛果的業、一切智者決定宣說為不善的業、自己也不願承受的業、由染污心所發起的業、必須等待邪咒術才具成效的業，以及自性無記的業——這些全都是非法。所以害為正法論不是如理之說。

九、邊無邊論（世間有邊／無邊）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，依止世間的各種靜慮，對世間住於「有邊想、無邊想、二者俱想、二者俱非想」（其餘如經廣說），於是主張：世間有邊、世間無邊、世間亦有邊亦無邊、世間非有邊非無邊。這裡已包括其因緣與作此計執的人。其中，若依「時間斷滅的邊際」尋求世間之邊，憶念到壞劫時便對世間生起有邊想，憶念到成劫時便對世間生起無邊想；若依「方域周遍廣度」尋求世間之邊，向下越過無間地獄便再無所得，向上越過第四靜慮也再無所得，但向四周一切方向都找不到邊際，於是對上下生起有邊想、對四周生起無邊想；若為對治這一執，只依不同文句而立、義理並無差別，便對世間生起非有邊非無邊想。

該反問他：從前一個壞劫以來，後來還有沒有世間生起？若說還有，主張世間有邊便講不通；若說沒有，既然已無世間安住，卻又憶念世間的邊際，也講不通。這樣，不論後來有世間生起或沒有世間生起，都不合道理，所以此論不是如理之說。

十、不死矯亂論（被問就含糊其辭、不正面答）

有四種「不死矯亂」外道（如經廣說）。他們被人依最勝生道問什麼是善、什麼是不善，或依決定勝道問苦、集、滅、道，就自稱「不死亂者」，隨處依著「不死的清淨天」，不正面接受詰問，反在所問之處用言語矯亂，或託付別的事來方便閃避，或只隨著問者的言辭而轉。其中：第一種是「自己的覺慧還沒開悟」（怕妄語、又怕人知道他無智，所以不明說「我一無所知」）；第二種是「對自己所證之法起了增上慢」（對自證尚未得無畏，怕被詰問、怕妄語、怕邪見，所以不明說「我有所證」）；第三種是「覺慧已開悟卻還不能決定」（怕邪見、妄語、被詰問，所以不明說「我不能決定」）——這三種都藉別的事用話矯亂；第四種是「羸劣愚鈍」（怕被詰問，又對最勝生道和決定勝道都不了達，連世間文字也不善知，所以不明說「我愚鈍、什麼都不懂」，只反問對方、順著對方的話矯亂）。這四種論說發起的因緣、能作計執的人，以及破斥其執的道理，都如經所說。由於這些外道心中多有怖畏，便依這些見解而住；有人來詰問時，就以諂曲言語矯亂。應知此見為惡見所攝，所以不是如理之說。

十一、無因見論（一切無因而生）

無因見有兩種：一種依止靜慮，一種依止尋思，應知其餘如經廣說。問：依尋思的外道，因何生起「我與世間全都無因而生」的見解、建立這種論說？答：簡要而言，是先見到事相不相續：內外各種事有無量差別，呈現種種生起；又有時看見因緣似乎空無果報。例如世間沒有看見因緣，忽然大風迅疾生起，過一段時間又寂然止息；有時瀑河忽然瀰漫暴漲，過一段時間又頓時乾竭；有時果樹忽然繁盛開花，過一段時間又迅速衰萎。由見到這些事，他便生起無因見、建立無因論。

該反問他：你那「宿住隨念」，憶的是「沒有體性的東西」，還是憶念「自我」？若憶無體之法，可沒有體性的法從未串習、從未被識所經驗，卻說能夠隨念，講不通；若憶念自我，可你又計執「我先前沒有，後來忽然生起」，也講不通。又問：一切世間內外諸物的種種生起或忽然生起，是無因，還是有因？若無因，它們既然無因而種種忽然生起，卻又有時不生，講不通；若有因，你所說「我與世間無因而生」便講不通。這樣，從隨念無體、隨念自我，內外諸物是否由因緣差別而種種生起等方面來看，都不合道理，所以無因見論不是如理之說。

十二、斷見論（死後斷滅、什麼都沒了）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說：只要我這粗重的「四大所造之身」還被住持而沒有壞滅，這時就有病、有癰、有箭等苦；等我死後，身體斷壞、一無所有，那時我就善巧地斷滅了。對欲界諸天、色界諸天，以及無色界空無邊處所攝乃至非想非非想處所攝的我，也分別作同樣計執，合為七種斷見。問：這些外道因何生起此見、建立此論？答：由教與理。教如前說。理是：有人天性愛好尋思，乃至如前廣說；他想：若我死後還有身，就應不造業而得到異熟果；若我的體性一切永無，就應根本沒有承受業果異熟之事。觀察這兩種都不合理，所以他主張：「我的身體死後便斷壞無有，如同瓦石一旦破碎，就不能重新合起。」

該反問他：是「蘊」斷滅，還是「我」斷滅？若說蘊斷滅，蘊體雖然無常，因果卻輾轉生起而不斷絕；對這樣的蘊說它全然斷滅，講不通。若說我斷滅，你先前所說「粗色四大所造之身有病、有癰、有箭，欲界諸天、色界諸天，以及無色界空無邊處所攝乃至非想非非想處所攝之我」全都講不通，因為那些說的都是蘊而不是我。這樣，無論說蘊斷滅或我斷滅，都不合道理，所以斷見論不是如理之說。

十三、空見論（撥無因果、撥無一切法）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說：沒有布施，沒有愛養，沒有祠祀，乃至世間沒有真阿羅漢；又另起一見，主張一切諸法都沒有體相。問：他們因何生起這些見解、建立這些論說？答：由教與理。教如前說。理是：有人天性愛好尋思、愛好觀察，乃至如前廣說，又依止世間的各種靜慮。他看見世間有施主一生之中持續布施、從無間斷，命終之後卻生在下賤之家，貧窮匱乏，便想：「必定沒有布施、愛養與祠祀的果。」他又看見有人一生恆行妙行，命終之後卻墮惡趣、生於地獄；也有人一生恆行惡行，命終之後反往善趣、生於天上安樂世界，便想：「必定沒有妙行與惡行，也沒有妙行、惡行二業的異熟果。」

他又看見剎帝利命終後生在婆羅門、吠舍或戍陀羅種姓中；也見婆羅門命終後生在剎帝利、吠舍或戍陀羅種姓中；吠舍與戍陀羅等種姓互相轉生，也是如此。他便想：「必定沒有此世的剎帝利等從彼世的同種姓而來，也沒有彼世的剎帝利等從此世的同種姓而去。」他又見離欲者生於下地；又見母親死後生而為女，女兒死後還作其母，父親死後成為兒子，兒子死後還作其父。見父母身分如此不決定，便想：「世間必定沒有父、沒有母。」有時又見人身壞命終，或生無想天，或生無色界，或入涅槃，而不能找到他的生處，便想：「必定沒有化生有情，因為其所在不可得知。」也有人在自己身上生起「我是阿羅漢」的增上慢，臨命終時卻見到後有的生相，便想：「世間必定沒有真阿羅漢。」至於主張一切諸法都沒有體相的人，是因不能如實正確覺了如來甚深經中那些相似甚深、離言說的法，又不依正理思惟所安立的法相，所以生起空見，認為「決定沒有諸法體相」。

該反問他：是既有此生所受業，也有後生所受業，還是一切業果全都在此生受？若二者都有，你先前所說「沒有布施、沒有愛養、沒有祠祀，沒有妙行、沒有惡行，沒有妙行惡行二業的異熟果，沒有此世、沒有彼世」，全都講不通；因為後生所受業正能解釋現世所行為何不在此生受果。若說沒有後生所受業，那麼造作種種清淨與不清淨業的人，命終後受生時就應頓時承受一切清淨與不清淨業的異熟果，也講不通。

又問：凡是從某人的胎藏與種子而生，提供胎藏與種子的人對所生者是父母，還是不是父母？若是父母，你所說「沒有父、沒有母」就講不通；若不是父母，明明從他的胎藏與種子所生，卻說不是父母，也講不通。當一個人作父母時，那時不是自己的男女；當一個人作男女時，那時不是自己的父母，所以並沒有身分不決定的過失。又問：有沒有在其他處受生、卻不被天眼看見的有情？若有，你所說「沒有化生有情」就講不通；若沒有，那便是否定了離想欲者、離色欲者與離三界欲者，也講不通。又問：是否實有阿羅漢性，而有人對此生起增上慢？若有，你所說「世間必定沒有真阿羅漢」就講不通；若沒有，那個發起不正思惟、顛倒自認為阿羅漢的人，反倒應當就是真阿羅漢，也講不通。又問：圓成實相法、依他起相法、遍計所執相法，是有還是無？若有，你所說「一切諸法都沒有體相」就講不通；若無，便應沒有顛倒，也沒有雜染與清淨，同樣講不通。這樣，從有此生與後生所受業、父母身分並非不定、另有受生之處、有人對阿羅漢性起增上慢、以及三種相法確有其義等方面來看，空見論都不合道理，所以不是如理之說。

十四、妄計最勝論（婆羅門種姓最尊）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說：婆羅門是最殊勝的種類，剎帝利等是下劣的種類；婆羅門是白淨的色類，其餘種姓是黑穢的色類；婆羅門種姓可以獲得清淨，其餘種類不能獲得清淨；婆羅門是梵王之子，從大梵王的口腹所生，從梵而出，由梵所變化，是梵王的血胤。這是鬥諍劫中的婆羅門所作的計執。問：他們因何生起這種見解、建立這種論說？答：由教與理。教如前說。理是：有人天性愛好尋思、愛好觀察，乃至如前廣說；他看見世間真正的婆羅門本性具戒，又因自己貪著名聞、利養與恭敬，所以作出這種計執。

該反問他：是只有其餘種姓從父母所生，還是婆羅門也同樣從父母所生？若只有其餘種姓從父母生，可世間現前明見婆羅門也從母親所生；你誹謗現見之事，講不通。若婆羅門也從父母生，你先前所說「婆羅門是最殊勝的種類，剎帝利等是下劣種類」就講不通。不只同樣從母親所生，婆羅門與其他種姓也同樣能造不善業、造作善業，造身語意惡行、造身語意妙行；同樣在現法中承受可愛與不可愛之果，後世生於各種惡趣或生於善趣；同樣要有父、母與中有三處現前，才能由彼由此進入母胎、從胎而生；同樣從事世間工巧業處與其他作業；同樣有善與不善，有作國王者、有作臣屬者，有機敏捷利者、有輾轉增進而得滿足者；同樣有受國王顧念錄用而作侍從者，也有不受顧念錄用者；同樣屬於老、病、死法，也同樣可以超越老病死法；同樣可能修習梵住而生梵世，也可能不修不生；同樣可能修菩提分法，也可能不修；同樣可能悟得聲聞菩提、獨覺菩提或無上菩提，也可能不悟。由這一切可見，婆羅門並沒有種姓上的天生優越。

又問：是從殊勝種類出生，就稱為殊勝，還是由戒與多聞等功德才稱為殊勝？若由從殊勝種類出生而稱為殊勝，可你們自己的論中又說：祭祀時若有戒與多聞等更殊勝的人，就取此人為衡量標準；如此說法自相矛盾，講不通。若由戒與多聞等功德而稱為殊勝，你先前所說「婆羅門是最殊勝種類，其餘種類下劣」便講不通。這樣，從同樣出生、造業、受生、從事工巧業處、具有增上差別、受或不受國王顧錄、修或不修梵住與覺分、證或不證菩提，以及由戒聞而勝等方面來看，種姓最勝論都不合道理，所以不是如理之說。

十五、妄計清淨論（享樂、禪定、沐浴、苦行就是清淨解脫）

有幾派外道生起不同的清淨論。第一派主張：「若我得到解脫，心得自在、觀得自在，對諸天的微妙五欲堅固攝受，在其中嬉戲娛樂、隨意受用，這就稱為獲得現法涅槃、第一清淨。」第二派主張：「若有人遠離欲與惡不善法，具足安住初靜慮，乃至具足安住第四靜慮，這也稱為獲得現法涅槃、第一清淨。」第三派主張：「若有眾生在孫陀利迦河中沐浴肢體，他所有的罪惡便全都消滅；在婆湖陀河、伽耶河、薩伐底河、殑伽河等河流中沐浴肢體也是如此，這就是第一清淨。」第四類外道把持狗戒當作清淨，有的持牛戒、油墨戒、露形戒、灰戒、自苦戒或糞穢戒等，也都計為清淨。這是宣說現法涅槃的外道，以及宣說由水等得到清淨的外道所作的計執。

問：他們因何生起這些見解、建立這些論說？答：由教與理。教如前說。理是：有人天性愛好尋思、愛好觀察，乃至如前廣說；他以為獲得縱任自在、欲自在、觀行自在，就稱為最勝清淨，卻不能如實了知縱任自在等的真實行相。又有人計執，由自苦其身便能從自己的惡中解脫；或先造過惡，再依那些方法便能從過惡中解脫。

該反問他：在微妙五欲中嬉戲受樂的人，是已經遠離欲貪，還是尚未遠離？若已遠離欲貪，卻又在世間五欲中嬉戲受樂，講不通；若尚未遠離欲貪，卻把這計為解脫清淨，也講不通。又問：獲得初靜慮乃至具足安住第四靜慮的人，是已遠離一切貪欲，還是尚未遠離？若已遠離一切貪欲，卻只說具足安住到第四靜慮，尚未超越三界，講不通；若尚未遠離一切欲，卻計為究竟解脫清淨，也講不通。

又問：是由內在清淨而得究竟清淨，還是由外在清淨而得究竟清淨？若由內在清淨，卻計執在河中沐浴便得清淨，講不通；若由外在清淨，內在仍具貪、瞋、癡等一切垢穢，只除外垢便計為清淨，也講不通。又問：是由執受清淨之物而得清淨，還是由執受不淨之物而得清淨？若由執受淨物而得清淨，世間共同看見狗等是不淨物，你卻立說執受狗等便得清淨，講不通；若由執受不淨物而得清淨，那便是自身體性不淨卻能令他清淨，也講不通。又問：受持狗戒等的人，是因行身語等邪惡行而得清淨，還是因行身語等正妙行而得清淨？若因行邪惡行，行邪惡行卻計為清淨，講不通；若因行正妙行，持狗戒等便成為徒勞無益，卻又計執能由它得到清淨，也講不通。這樣，從已離欲或未離欲、內清淨或外清淨、執受淨物或不淨物、行邪行或正行等方面來看，都不合道理，所以這些清淨論不是如理之說。

十六、妄計吉祥論（日月星宿占吉凶）

有一種沙門或婆羅門，生起這樣的見解、建立這樣的論說：世間若日月薄蝕、星宿運行失度，想做的事情全都不能成就；若日月星宿運行隨順，想做的事情便全都成就。為了這個目的，他們精勤供養日月星等，祭火誦咒，安置茅草，並擺設裝滿一甕的頻螺果與餉佉等。這是曆算占候者所作的計執。問：他們因何生起此見、建立此論？答：由教與理。教如前說。理是：有人天性愛好尋思，乃至如前廣說；他獲得世間靜慮，世間人都以為他是阿羅漢。想求自身富樂、希望所求如願的人，便去向他請問；他卻不能如實了知業與果相應、由緣而生的道理，只看見世間日月薄蝕、星宿失度運行時，正好有情的清淨或不清淨業果報成熟，就計執為日月星宿等所作，又為信樂此事的人建立並宣說這套論法。

該反問他：世間興盛、衰損等事，是日月薄蝕、星宿失度等所造，還是清淨與不清淨業所造？若說由日月等所造，可現前明見人們一生之中隨其所造福業或非福業，招感相應的興盛、衰損、痛苦、安樂等果，講不通；若說由清淨與不清淨業所造，你所計執「由日月等所造」便講不通。這樣，無論說日月星宿所作，或說淨不淨業所作，都不能成立日月造果之論，所以吉祥論不是如理之說。

結：十六異論一概不成立

這十六種異論，從「教、理」兩道門去觀察、用正確的道理一路推究，在任何一種情形下都講不通。（這正是「不如理作意」結出來的果——用錯方向的思惟，就生出這些站不住的見。）

This is the fourth of the five gates, and it is the exact opposite of the third gate, "attention in accord with principle." "Attention contrary to principle" means "thinking pointed in the wrong direction," and it bears fruit in every kind of mistaken view. Here the treatise takes the "sixteen heterodox theories" (the erroneous doctrines of sixteen schools of outsiders) as its specimens and works through them one by one: first it sets out what each school asserts, then it states on what grounds they assert it (on the authority of a received teaching, and on their own reasoning), and finally it refutes them, point by point, by principle.

Opening: The Sixteen Heterodox Theories

What is "the establishment of attention contrary to principle"? The summary verse (uddāna) states: the theory that the effect pre-exists in the cause; the theory of manifestation; the theory that past and future really exist; the theory of a self; the theory of permanence; the theory of a former deed as the cause; the theory of a creator such as the Sovereign God; the theory that killing is the true Dharma; the theory of the finite and the infinite; the theory of endless equivocation; the theory of the view of no-cause; the theory of annihilation; the theory of emptiness; the theory that falsely reckons some caste supreme; the theory that falsely reckons some practice to be purity; and the theory that falsely reckons some sign to be auspicious — sixteen heterodox theories in all. By the distinctions among these sixteen heterodox theories, one can see what "attention contrary to principle" is. Which sixteen? First, the theory that the effect pre-exists in the cause; second, the theory of manifestation through conditions; third, the theory that past and future really exist; fourth, the theory that reckons a self; fifth, the theory that reckons permanence; sixth, the theory of a former deed as the cause; seventh, the theory that reckons a Sovereign God and the like to be the creator; eighth, the theory that killing is the true Dharma; ninth, the theory of the finite and the infinite; tenth, the theory of endless equivocation regarding the deathless; eleventh, the theory of the view of no-cause; twelfth, the theory of the view of annihilation; thirteenth, the theory of the view of emptiness; fourteenth, the theory that falsely reckons some caste supreme; fifteenth, the theory that falsely reckons some practice to be purity; sixteenth, the theory that falsely reckons some sign to be auspicious.

1. The Theory That the Effect Pre-exists in the Cause (the effect is already hidden within the cause all along)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: at all times, always and forever, the "cause" already fully possesses the character of the "effect" within it. (This is the reckoning of the Vārṣagaṇya outsiders — the Sāṃkhya school.) Question: on what grounds do they hold this view and set up this doctrine? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching, and on reasoning. The "teaching" is the body of doctrine handed down by their former masters, passed on from generation to generation right up to the present, which says that the effect is originally there within the cause. The "reasoning" is that people of this sort are by nature fond of pondering and fond of examining, yet they stop at the level of an ordinary person's pondering, and so they think this way: since "this thing" can arise from "that thing," the world commonly agrees to set up "this" as the cause of "that"; one who seeks the effect takes up only this cause and no other; one who acts, too, applies effort only upon this cause; and that effect arises only from this cause and not from anywhere else — therefore the effect is already there within the cause all along. Otherwise, one would have to say that "everything is the cause of everything," that to seek a single effect one should take up everything, that one should apply effort upon everything, and that every effect should arise from everything (which would throw it all into chaos).

One should question them closely: what exactly do you assert? What is the character of a cause? What is the character of an effect? Are the character of the cause and the character of the effect the same, or different? If the two characters, of cause and effect, have no difference, then there are no longer these two distinct things, cause and effect — and with no distinction, "the effect pre-exists in the cause" cannot be maintained. If the two characters, of cause and effect, do differ, then tell us: the character of the effect within the cause — is it the character of "not yet arisen," or the character of "already arisen"? If it is the character of not-yet-arisen, then since the effect within the cause has not yet arisen, to say it "exists" cannot be maintained; if it is the character of already-arisen, then since the body of the effect has already arisen, to say further that it arises from the cause cannot be maintained. Therefore the effect does not pre-exist within the cause; rather, there must be a cause, and then, awaiting the completing of conditions, the effect arises. Furthermore, for a thing that has a character to be discerned within another thing that has a character, five situations are required: first, it is found in a location (like water in a jar); second, it is found in a support (like eye-consciousness in the eye); third, it is recognized by its own character (like the very substance of a cause, without inference); fourth, it is recognized by its own activity; fifth, when the cause alters the effect alters along with it, or when the condition alters the effect alters along with it. But your "the effect exists in the cause forever" does not match a single one of these five situations. Therefore this school's doctrine cannot be maintained — whether one says cause and effect are non-different, or says cause and effect differ, or says the effect is not yet arisen, or says the effect is already arisen, none of it can be maintained.

2. The Theory of Manifestation Through Conditions (the effect exists all along, and the conditions only "manifest" it)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: the essential nature of all dharmas exists all along, and it is only "manifested by the assembly of conditions," not "produced from conditions." (This is the reckoning of those who hold the theory that the effect pre-exists in the cause, and of those who hold the theory of sound-character.) Question: on what grounds do those who hold that the effect pre-exists in the cause say that the effect is already there within the cause and is only manifested by conditions? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The teaching is as stated before. The reasoning is this — they think: if the effect exists all along, yet one still says it arises from the cause, this cannot be maintained; but making the effect really does require the application of effort, so what is the effort for? Is it not precisely in order to "manifest the effect"? And so they set up the "theory of manifestation."

One should question them closely: what do you assert? Is it that there is a "condition without any obstruction," and yet there is obstruction; or is it that there is a "condition with obstruction"? If you say there is a condition without any obstruction and yet there is obstruction, this cannot be maintained; if you say there is a condition with obstruction, then that cause which belongs to the effect — why is it not obstructed? (Cause and effect are equally "existent.") This cannot be maintained. Take a comparison: darkness can obstruct the water in a jar, and it can obstruct the jar itself. If you say the obstructing condition obstructs the cause as well, then it ought to manifest the cause along with it (since both cause and effect are obstructed); but you insist that it manifests only the effect within the cause and does not manifest the cause — this cannot be maintained. Again ask: is it "existence-nature" that serves as the obstructing condition, or "effect-nature" that serves as the obstructing condition? If it is "existence-nature" that obstructs, then "existence" ought never to be manifested at all (which cannot be maintained, for the cause too is "existent" — how is it not obstructed?); if it is "effect-nature" that obstructs, then one and the same thing is both cause and effect (as a sprout is the effect of the seed and the cause of the stalk and so forth), so one and the same dharma would be both manifested and not manifested — this cannot be maintained. Again ask, and answer as you will: are the original dharma and its "manifestation" the same, or different? If they are not different (one and the same thing), then the dharma ought to be manifest forever, manifested and manifested again — this cannot be maintained; if you say they are different (two separate things), then is this "manifestation" without a cause, or with a cause? To say it is manifested without a cause cannot be maintained; to say it is with a cause — then what can do the manifesting is effect-nature, not cause-nature, and to manifest the effect by means of "that which does not manifest the cause" cannot be maintained. Therefore your saying — "if the nature of a dharma is absent, then it has no character; if the nature of a dharma is present, then it has a character; if absent, it cannot be manifested; if present, only then can it be manifested" — cannot be maintained. Now I will tell you: even though a thing "exists," its character is not necessarily grasped right away — perhaps because it is too far off (though existing, it cannot be grasped), or because it is obstructed by the four kinds of obstruction, or because it is too subtle, or because the mind is distracted, or because the faculties are impaired, or because one has not yet attained the cognition that would apprehend its character — and so it cannot be grasped. It is not that "not being grasped is the same as not existing, so that only what is manifested counts as existing." (This also refutes in passing "those who hold the theory of sound-character" — who assert that "the character of sound is permanent, without arising or ceasing, and is only made manifest by being uttered" — which, like the theory of manifestation, cannot be maintained.)

3. The Theory That Past and Future Really Exist (past and future are as really existent as the present)

There is a certain kind of renunciant, or brahmin, or one who, though within the Buddha's teaching, reflects incorrectly, who asserts: there is a past and there is a future, and their characters are fully accomplished, just like the present — really existent, not merely nominal. (This is the reckoning of the Sarvāstivāda.) Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The one within the Buddha's teaching has misconstrued the Tathāgata's sūtras — as when a sūtra says "all that exists is the twelve sense-fields," and he takes the real character of these twelve sense-fields to be existent; and as when the Buddha says "there is past action," and says "there is past form, there is future form," down through consciousness likewise. The reasoning is this — he thinks: if a dharma has its own character abiding, then it is truly existent; if this dharma were nonexistent in the time of the future, then at that time it should not yet have its character; if it were nonexistent in the time of the past, then at that time it should have lost its own character; and in that case the own-characters of dharmas would not be established — therefore past and future are really existent.

One should question them closely: the two characters, past and future, and the character of the present — are they one, or different? If you say their character is one, then the distinction of the "three times" cannot be established, which cannot be maintained; if you say their character is different, then "past and future really exist" cannot be maintained. Ask again: a dharma that falls within the three times — is it of permanent character or impermanent character? If it is of permanent character, yet it falls within the three times (undergoing transition), this cannot be maintained; if it is of impermanent character, yet it really exists forever throughout the three times, this cannot be maintained. Ask again, and answer as you will — what do you suppose: (i) does a future dharma "come" to the present? (ii) or does it die in the future and arise in the present? (iii) or does it abide in the future and, being taken as a condition, produce the present? (iv) or is it originally without activity, and only now has activity? (v) or is its character originally incomplete, and only now complete? (vi) or is it originally of a different character, and now of another character? (vii) or is there already, within the future, a component of the present? Refuting them one by one: (i) if the future dharma comes to the present, then it possesses a spatial position, and moreover is no different from the present, and moreover ought to be permanent — this cannot be maintained; (ii) if it dies in the future and arises in the present, then the future does not arise in the now, and the present dharma originally-nonexistent now arises, and moreover the future, not yet arisen, is said to have died and perished — this cannot be maintained; (iii) if it abides in the future and, as a condition, produces the present, then it ought to be permanent, and moreover it ought to be originally-nonexistent now arising, and it is not the future dharma that arises — this cannot be maintained; (iv) if it is originally without activity and now has activity, then this is "originally nonexistent, now existent," which incurs the fault stated before — this cannot be maintained. And ask further: is this "activity" of a different character from that original dharma, or of no different character? If of a different character, then this activity-character was nonexistent in the time of the future — this cannot be maintained; if of no different character, then "originally without activity, now having activity" cannot be maintained. (v) The completeness of character, (vi) the different character, and (vii) the future having a present component — these three are refuted in just the same way. The difference is that they incur one additional fault, the fault of "confusion of own-nature," so they cannot be maintained. Just as the future rushing toward the present is refuted in this way, so too the present falling into the past is refuted in just the same way. Therefore, to say that the substance of past and future really exists cannot be maintained.

Next, someone raises an objection: if past and future are nonexistent, how can a cognition arise that "takes the nonexistent as its object"? And if a cognition can arise taking the nonexistent as object, does this not contradict the teaching that "all that exists is the twelve sense-fields"? One should question in return: a worldly cognition that "grasps the nonexistent" (as when one recognizes "no-self, a hare's horns, the child of a barren woman") — does it arise, or not arise? If it does not arise, then cognitions grasping no-self and the like ought all to be nonexistent, which cannot be maintained; and the Buddha also said, "My unflattering disciples, when there is existence know it as existence, when there is nonexistence know it as nonexistence." If you say it does arise, then this cognition that grasps the nonexistent — does it take the aspect of "existent," or the aspect of "nonexistent"? If it takes the aspect of existent, then "a cognition grasping the nonexistent yet taking the aspect of existent" cannot be maintained; if it takes the aspect of nonexistent, then ask further: this cognition of the nonexistent aspect — does it operate "with reference to an existent object," or "with reference to a nonexistent object"? To operate with reference to an existent object — then "a cognition of the nonexistent aspect yet operating with reference to an existent object" cannot be maintained; to operate with reference to a nonexistent object — then "with no object there is no cognition" cannot be maintained. Further: although the sūtra says "all that exists is the twelve sense-fields," this means "for existent dharmas, it says with hidden intent that they possess the existent character; for nonexistent dharmas, it says with hidden intent that they possess the nonexistent character" — existent-character dharmas bear the existent character, and nonexistent-character dharmas bear the nonexistent character; both are called dharmas and both are called existent, and it is not that past and future really exist. Again, "there is past action" is a nominal statement of existence made with hidden intent in reliance upon "habit-energy" — within the movements there was once a pure or impure action arising and ceasing, and by this that stream of movements continues in a specially distinct manner, which is called habit-energy, and by relying on this habit-energy the agreeable or disagreeable effect is produced; so "past action" is nominally spoken of in reliance upon habit-energy, and there is no fault on my side, whereas your view cannot be maintained. Again, "there is past form, future form, present form," down through consciousness, is spoken with hidden intent in reliance upon three kinds of character: in reliance upon the "cause-character" it says with hidden intent that there is a future; in reliance upon the "own-character" it says with hidden intent that there is a present; in reliance upon the "effect-character" it says with hidden intent that there is a past — so there is no fault. Again, one should not say that past and future have a really-existent character. Why? One should know that the future has twelve characters: first, the character of being displayed by the cause; second, the character of the substance being not yet arisen; third, the character of awaiting the assembly of conditions; fourth, the character of an already-arisen kind; fifth, the character of being a producible dharma; sixth, the character of being a non-producible dharma; seventh, the character of not-yet-arisen defilement; eighth, the character of not-yet-arisen purity; ninth, the character of what ought to be sought; tenth, the character of what ought not to be sought; eleventh, the character of what ought to be examined; twelfth, the character of what ought not to be examined. One should know that the present too has twelve characters: first, the character of being displayed by the effect; second, the character of the substance being already arisen; third, the character of the assembling of conditions; fourth, the character of an already-arisen kind; fifth, the character of a single instant; sixth, the character of a dharma that will not arise again; seventh, the character of present defilement; eighth, the character of present purity; ninth, the character of what may be delighted in; tenth, the character of what may not be delighted in; eleventh, the character of what ought to be examined; twelfth, the character of what ought not to be examined. One should know that the past too has twelve characters: first, the character of a cause already passed; second, the character of a condition already passed; third, the character of an effect already passed; fourth, the character of the substance already destroyed; fifth, the character of an already-ceased kind; sixth, the character of a dharma that will not arise again; seventh, the character of stilled defilement; eighth, the character of stilled purity; ninth, the character of a place worth looking back upon with longing; tenth, the character of a place not worth looking back upon with longing; eleventh, the character of what ought to be examined; twelfth, the character of what ought not to be examined. — These are all designations of "character"; they are not a really-existent substance.

4. The Theory That Reckons a Self (there is a real, permanently abiding "self")

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: there is a "self, a sentient being (sattva), a living one, a born one, a nourished one, a soul that runs through the courses of rebirth," and these are real and permanently abiding. (This is the reckoning of the outsiders.) Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning has two strands: first, "without prior deliberation, a feeling-awareness of a sentient being suddenly arises"; second, "only after having deliberated can there be action." He thinks: if there were no self, then upon seeing five kinds of thing one ought not to give rise to the five "there-is-a-self" awarenesses — first, upon seeing color-and-shape, one ought only to give rise to the awareness of "color," not to the awareness of a "sentient being (sattva)"; second, upon seeing conduct that accords with pain and pleasure, one ought only to give rise to the awareness of "feeling," not to the awareness of a "superior or inferior sentient being"; third, upon seeing conduct associated with an assigned name, one ought only to give rise to the awareness of "perception," not to the awareness of a "kṣatriya, a brahmin, a vaiśya, a śūdra, one-granted-by-the-Buddha, a friend-in-virtue," and such sentient beings; fourth, upon seeing conduct associated with the pure and impure, one ought only to give rise to the awareness of "volitional formation," not to the awareness of a "foolish one or a wise one" as sentient beings; fifth, upon seeing consciousness following along after an object, one ought only to give rise to the awareness of "mind," not to the awareness of "I am able to see" and such sentient-being awarenesses. Since with regard to these five things one does give rise to the awareness of a "sentient being," there must be a real self. He also thinks: if there were no self, one ought not, within the movements, to first give rise to deliberation and then have action — as in "I shall see forms with the eye; I am now seeing forms; I have seen forms; or I give rise to the thought, I shall not see" — these functions all take the "self-awareness" as their guide; and it is likewise for ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; the performing and the ceasing of wholesome and unwholesome action, too, all take deliberation as their guide before there is function — therefore there is a self.

Now I question you, and answer as you will: do you give rise to the awareness of a sentient being "right upon the thing seen," or do you give rise to the awareness of a sentient being "apart from the thing seen"? If you give rise to it right upon the thing seen (color and so forth), then you ought not to say that "to reckon a self, a sentient being, upon color and so forth is an inverted awareness" (for that would just be color and so forth themselves); if you give rise to it apart from the thing seen, then the "self" would have shape and size, would have superiority and inferiority, would be a kṣatriya and so forth, would be foolish or wise, would be able to grasp objects such as color — and these cannot be maintained (apart from color and so forth, where would these come from?). Ask again: does this awareness arise "by the own-substance of this dharma alone," or "by another substance as well"? If it arises by the own-substance of this dharma alone, then "giving rise to a self-awareness upon the thing seen" ought not to be called inverted; if it arises by another substance as well, then it would follow that "every object is the cognitive cause of every object," which cannot be maintained. Ask again: with regard to the insentient does an awareness of the sentient arise; with regard to the sentient an awareness of the insentient; with regard to one sentient being an awareness of "another sentient being" — do these arise or not? If they arise, then the insentient would have to be sentient, the sentient would have to be insentient — this cannot be maintained; if they do not arise, then you are repudiating direct perception, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: does this awareness of a sentient being grasp the object of "direct perception," or grasp the object of "inference"? If it grasps direct perception, yet direct perception has only the aggregates of color and so forth — the "self" is not an object of direct perception — this cannot be maintained; if it grasps inference, yet even a foolish infant, not yet able to reason, suddenly gives rise to a self-awareness — this cannot be maintained.

Ask again: is worldly action caused by "awareness," or caused by "the self"? If it is caused by awareness, then "grasping that the self acts" cannot be maintained; if it is caused by the self, yet you also say "one must first deliberate before there is action," this cannot be maintained. Ask again: is the cause of the deed done permanent or impermanent? If impermanent, then this cause undergoes alteration, and "grasping that the self acts" cannot be maintained; if permanent, then it undergoes no alteration, and "acting without alteration" cannot be maintained. Ask again: is it "a self that has motion" that can act, or "a self without motion" that can act? If a self that has motion can act, then it ought to be acting forever and need not act again; if a self without motion can act, then "having the nature of no motion, yet having action" cannot be maintained. Ask again: is there action because there is a cause, or without a cause? If with a cause, then this self must be spurred by some other cause before it can act, which cannot be maintained (for then the self would not be autonomous); if without a cause, then it ought to be doing everything at all times, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: does this self act in dependence on itself, or act in dependence on another? If in dependence on itself, then this self would be producing for itself the sufferings of old age, sickness, and death, and defilement and so forth, which cannot be maintained; if in dependence on another, then "reckoning that the self acts" cannot be maintained.

I ask you further: is the "self" designated "right upon the five aggregates," is it "within the aggregates," is it "in some place outside the aggregates," or is it "not belonging to the aggregates"? If it is designated right upon the aggregates, then the self and the aggregates would be no different, yet you say there is a real, permanently abiding self — this cannot be maintained. If it is within the aggregates, then is this self permanent or impermanent? If permanent, then a permanently abiding self is harmed and benefited by pain and pleasure, which cannot be maintained; and if it is neither harmed nor benefited, then it cannot give rise to dharma and non-dharma (in which case the aggregate-body would ultimately never arise, and without any effort the self would be permanently liberated). If impermanent, then apart from the substance of the aggregates a separate dharma that has arising and ceasing and continues in transmigration cannot be found — this cannot be maintained. If it is in some place outside the aggregates, then the self you reckon would be unconditioned (having no function), which cannot be maintained; if it does not belong to the aggregates, then the self would be forever without defilement, and moreover the self and the body would have no connection — this cannot be maintained.

Ask again: the self you reckon — is it "the very character of the seer and so forth" (the seer, the hearer... the very one who can see and hear), or "the character apart from the seer and so forth"? If it is "the very character of the seer and so forth," then is it "the seer and so forth nominally set up right upon seeing, hearing, and so forth," or "the seer and so forth set up apart from seeing, hearing, and so forth"? If it is "nominally set up right upon seeing and so forth," then seeing and so forth themselves are the seer and so forth, yet you set up the "self" as the seer and so forth — this cannot be maintained (for the seer and so forth are no different from seeing and so forth, so the "self" would just equal seeing and so forth, not a separate permanent-and-real self); if it is "set up apart from seeing and so forth," then is this dharma of seeing and so forth "the deed produced by the self" or "the implement used by the self"?

If you say seeing and so forth is "the deed produced by the self": if it is like a seed (a seed producing a sprout), then the self ought to be impermanent, which cannot be maintained (you say the self is permanent); if it is like a potter's making a pot, a "nominally set-up person," then the self ought to be impermanent and nominally set up, yet you say the self is permanent and real, which cannot be maintained; if it is like a person with supernormal powers who nominally sets up a person and is freely autonomous over what is made, then the self too ought to be impermanent and nominally set up, which, like the foregoing, cannot be maintained; if it is like "earth," then it too ought to be impermanent, and moreover the self you reckon does not have the conspicuous function that the great element earth has — for the world can see the function of the earth-element (it can hold up the ten thousand things and keep them from falling), whereas your self has no such visible function — this cannot be maintained; if it is like "space," then it ought not to be really existent — for "space" is merely "nominally set up in the place where there is no matter," yet even though space is nominally existent it still has a clearly discernible function (it is by relying on space that going, coming, bending, and stretching and such motions can occur), whereas your self lacks even this — this cannot be maintained. Therefore "seeing and so forth is the deed produced by the self" cannot be maintained.

If you say seeing and so forth is "the implement used by the self": if it is like a sickle (using a sickle to cut a thing), then apart from the sickle other things too have the function of cutting, whereas apart from seeing and so forth the function of seeing and so forth cannot be found upon any other thing — this cannot be maintained; if it is like fire (using fire to burn a thing), then reckoning a self is useless — for the world's fire, apart from "one who can burn," can of itself burn — which cannot be maintained. If you say "apart from the character of the seer and so forth there is a separate self," then the self you reckon runs counter to every means of knowledge (neither direct perception nor inference can reach it), which cannot be maintained.

Ask again: the self you reckon — does it "have defilement and purity only because it is associated with defilement and purity," or does it "have defilement and purity without being associated with defilement and purity"? If it has them only because it is associated with defilement and purity, then within the movements there are already found affliction, calamity, and mishap (defilement), and their stilling and beneficial ordering (purity), so one can see that although the movements have no self, they may still be spoken of as having association with defilement and purity (as it is with outer things, so with the inner body — without a self, the meaning of defilement and purity is established all the same); therefore the self you reckon cannot be maintained. If it has defilement and purity without being associated with defilement and purity, then "apart from the character of defilement and purity, the self yet has defilement and purity" cannot be maintained. Ask again: the self you reckon — does it "have transmigration only because it is associated with the character of transmigration," or does it "have transmigration and its ceasing without being so associated"? If it has transmigration only because it is associated with the character of transmigration, then within the movements there are found five characters of transmigration — first, having a cause; second, capable of arising; third, capable of ceasing; fourth, arising in unbroken mutual succession; fifth, having alteration; and since the movements (like a body, a sprout, a river, a lamp, a cart, and such), in the very functioning of transmigration, have no self and yet of themselves have transmigration and its ceasing, what need is there to reckon a self? If it has transmigration and its ceasing without being associated with the character of transmigration, then "the self has no character of transmigration, yet has transmigration and its ceasing" cannot be maintained. Ask again: the self you reckon — is it called the one who feels, the one who acts, the one who is liberated "by reason of the alterations produced by objects, whether painful or pleasant, and by deliberate action, and by the afflictions, the secondary afflictions, and so forth," or "not by those alterations"? If by those alterations, then it is the movements (undergoing the alterations of feeling) that are the one who feels, the one who acts, and the one who is liberated — what need is there to reckon a self? And even granting it is the self, the self would then be impermanent, which cannot be maintained; if not by those alterations, then "the self, having no alteration, is yet the one who feels, acts, and is liberated" cannot be maintained. Ask again: is "the agent" spoken of only upon the self, or spoken of upon other dharmas as well? If only upon the self, then the world ought not to say "fire is that which burns" or "light is that which illuminates" (fire and light too are taken as agents); if also upon other dharmas, then just speak of an agent upon the faculties of seeing and so forth, and reckoning a self on top of that is a needless extra — this cannot be maintained. Ask again: is "a self" established only upon the self, or established upon other dharmas as well? If only upon the self, then the world ought not to call that "nominally posited person's body" a "friend-in-virtue, one-granted-by-the-Buddha," and so on (those names are all placed upon the five-aggregate body); if also upon other dharmas, then it is merely "nominally speaking of a self upon the movements" — what need to grasp separately at a self? Why? Worldly people merely give rise to the notion of "a sentient being" upon the nominally posited person's body, set up the name "sentient being," and speak of a distinction between self and other, that is all. Ask again: is the view that reckons a self wholesome or unwholesome? If wholesome, then why does the most utterly deluded person deeply give rise to the view of self — not by any method, but suddenly? and why can it make sentient beings dread liberation and cause every kind of evil to grow? — this cannot be maintained (how could a wholesome dharma be like this?); if unwholesome, then it ought not to be called "right and non-inverted." Ask again: is the view of no-self wholesome or unwholesome? If you say it is wholesome, then to see "there is no self" upon a "permanently abiding, really existent self" would be wholesome (inverted yet wholesome) — this cannot be maintained; if you say it is unwholesome, yet all the wise proclaim it, and it is generated by diligent skillful means, and it can make sentient beings not dread liberation, swiftly realize the pure-and-clean fruit, and truly counteract every evil and fault — to call it unwholesome cannot be maintained. Ask again: does "self-nature itself reckon a self," or does one reckon a self "by reason of the view of self"? If self-nature itself reckons a self, then there ought never at any time to be an awareness of "no-self" (yet people can indeed give rise to the awareness of no-self); if it is by reason of the view of self, then although there is no real self, it is merely by the force of the view of self that one falsely supposes there is a self within the movements — so your firm conclusion that a self really exists cannot be maintained. In this way — from "that awareness arising without prior deliberation," from "seeing that there is action with deliberation as its guide," from "being nominally designated upon the aggregates," from "being established as existent in reliance upon that character," from "the setting up of defilement and purity," from "the setting up of transmigration and its ceasing," from "the nominal positing of a feeler, an agent, and one liberated," from "the designating of an agent," from "the designating of verbal expression," and from "the designating of a view" — from every angle, to reckon that there is a real self cannot be maintained.

Finally, the treatise states "the character of the self in the ultimate sense": what is called "self" is merely "nominally set up as existent" upon dharmas, and there is no really existent self; and this nominal self cannot be said to be either different from or non-different from the dharmas (do not suppose it to be a really existent substance, or that the dharmas are themselves the character of the self). This nominal self is of the character of impermanence, of non-constancy, of what cannot be kept secure, of the perishable, of what is a dharma that arises, of old age, sickness, and death — it is merely the character of dharmas, merely the character of suffering and distress. Therefore the Buddha said: "Bhikṣus, you should know! Within dharmas a self is nominally set up; this self is impermanent and inconstant, cannot be kept secure, and is a perishable dharma." The reason for nominally setting up "a self" is fourfold: first, for the sake of ease in worldly speech; second, in order to accord with the world; third, in order to dispel the dread of "there is decidedly no self"; fourth, in order to proclaim the accomplishments-of-merit and faults of self and other, and to make people give rise to a settled faith and understanding. Therefore, clinging to the doctrine of a real self cannot be maintained.

5. The Theory That Reckons Permanence (both the self and the world are permanently abiding)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: the self and the world are both real and permanently abiding — not made by anyone, not transformed by anyone, incapable of being damaged, standing as an accumulation, like the iṣīkā reed (a tough, resilient reed). (Those who reckon regarding the prior limit that "all is permanent" or that "a part is permanent," those who reckon regarding the later limit "one who has perception," "one who has no perception," or "one who is neither-perceiving-nor-non-perceiving," and further those who reckon that the subtle particles are permanently abiding — all reckon in this way.) Question: on what grounds do they say the self and the world are permanently abiding? Here, the one who reckons regarding the prior limit either relies on the meditative absorption to give rise to "recollection of former abodes" (remembering former lives), yet is not skilled in dependent origination, and merely on the basis of recollection, without knowing as it really is, takes the past to be the prior limit and gives rise to the view of permanence; or he relies on the divine eye to take the present as the prior limit, and not knowing as it really is the momentary arising-and-ceasing transmigration of the movements, and seeing the stream of consciousnesses continuing unbroken from this world to that world, gives rise to the view of permanence. The one who reckons regarding the later limit, though he sees a difference between "perception" and "feeling," does not see the difference in their own-characters, and so gives rise to the view of permanence. The one who reckons the subtle particles to be permanent relies on worldly meditative absorption to give rise to his view, and because he does not know dependent origination as it really is, supposes that "first there is a cause, and afterward the aggregating-arising of an effect; first there is a dispersing, and afterward a perishing," and so says that from the aggregation of many particles a coarse thing is formed, and then the coarse thing is analyzed down until one reaches the subtle particle as the limit — therefore the coarse thing is impermanent and the subtle particle is permanent.

(Reckoning permanent abiding regarding the prior and later limits comes down, in truth, to a distinctive character of the grasping-at-self; the grasping-at-self has already been refuted, so this is refuted along with it.) Ask again: your "recollection of former abodes" — does it recall "the aggregates" or "a self"? If it recalls the aggregates, then "grasping that the self and the world are permanent" cannot be maintained; if it recalls a self, yet what you recall is "a sentient being of such-and-such a name, such-and-such a lineage, in the past," this cannot be maintained (what you recall is plainly a named, lineaged aggregate-character). Ask again: when eye-consciousness arises taking as its object the present, assembled color-object, the remaining consciousnesses — those not present, not assembled — do they cease, or turn into this one? If you say they cease, then a consciousness that perishes is being reckoned permanent, which cannot be maintained; if you say they turn into it, then "by reliance on a single object all consciousnesses at all times arise" cannot be maintained. Ask again: the self you grasp — as it is produced by "perception" and produced by "feeling," does it have alteration or no alteration? If you say it has, then "the world and the self are permanently abiding" cannot be maintained; if you say it has none, yet people plainly first have one perception and then have manifold perceptions, and then a small perception and an immeasurable perception (and feeling too changes through pain, pleasure, and so forth), which cannot be maintained.

Here the treatise also points out several related reckonings together: those who reckon "the life-principle is the very body" reckon the self as material; those who reckon "the life-principle differs from the body" reckon the self as non-material; those who reckon "the self pervades all, without duality and without lack" reckon the self as both material and non-material; those who, in order to counter this, give rise to a grasping that merely changes the phrasing and the wording, reckon the self as neither material nor non-material. Again: those who see only a small portion of matter and a small portion of the non-material reckon it "finite"; those who see it as immeasurable reckon it "infinite"; those who see it throughout, yet with the material portion small and the non-material portion immeasurable (or the material portion immeasurable and the non-material portion small), reckon it "both finite and infinite"; those who, in order to counter this, give rise to a grasping that merely changes the wording without changing the meaning, reckon it "neither finite nor infinite"; or they reckon a liberated self that is remote from both the finite and the infinite.

Now to refute "the subtle particle is permanently abiding." Question them in return: do you reckon the subtle particle permanent "after having examined it," or reckon it permanent "without examining it"? If without examining, then to decide it is permanent apart from the examination of wisdom cannot be maintained; if you say you have examined it, then it runs counter to every means of knowledge (neither direct perception nor inference can reach a permanent subtle particle), which cannot be maintained. Ask again: do you reckon it permanent "because it is extremely subtle," or reckon it permanent "because its character differs from that of the coarse effect-thing"? If because it is subtle, then the more it is dispersed, diminished, and made feeble, the more you call it permanent, which cannot be maintained; if because its character differs, then the subtle particle exceeds the character of earth, water, fire, and wind, being of an unlike kind, yet you say it can produce the effect of that kind (the coarse thing), which cannot be maintained — and moreover no other character of the subtle particle can be found, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: the coarse thing that arises from the subtle particle — is it of "non-different character" from the subtle particle, or of "different character"? If of non-different character, then since it is no different from its cause, the subtle particle, it too ought to be permanent, and this makes there be no fixity of cause and effect, which cannot be maintained; if of different character, then does the coarse thing arise "from the dispersed subtle particles" or "from the aggregated subtle particles"? If from the dispersed, then every effect ought to arise at all times (with no fixity of cause and effect), which cannot be maintained; if from the aggregated, then when the coarse effect-thing arises, does it "not exceed the measure of the subtle particles' form-substance," or "exceed it"? If it does not exceed, then "producing a thing with form-substance-parts from a thing with form-substance-parts" (with no increase of measure) cannot be maintained; if it exceeds, then since the substance of the subtle particle has no fine parts and cannot be further analyzed, the coarse thing produced ought also to be permanent, which cannot be maintained. If you then say "there are some subtle particles that, being originally nonexistent, now arise," then "reckoning the subtle particle permanent" cannot be maintained. Ask again: when the subtle particles arise and construct the coarse thing, is it "like a seed" or "like a potter"? If like a seed, then it ought to be impermanent like a seed; if like a potter, then the subtle particles ought to have deliberation (like a potter who reflects), which cannot be maintained; if it is like neither seed nor potter, then no corresponding example can be found, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: the arising of outer things — is it "by sentient beings" or "not"? If by sentient beings, then the outer coarse thing is produced by sentient beings while the fine thing it depends on (the subtle particle) is not produced by sentient beings, which cannot be maintained (who then assigned the subtle particle its capacity?); if not by sentient beings, then "with no use, and yet outer things arise" cannot be maintained. Therefore "the subtle particle is permanently abiding" also cannot be maintained.

In this way, those who reckon permanent abiding regarding the prior and later limits — on the grounds of "recollecting the aggregates and sentient beings, the unbroken stream of all consciousnesses upon one object, and the altering or non-altering of perception and feeling" — cannot be maintained; and those who reckon the subtle particle permanent — on the grounds of "examining or not examining, the general character and the own-character, the constructing, and the fundamental use" — also cannot be maintained. Therefore the theory that reckons permanence cannot be maintained. At the close the treatise states how "the character of permanent abiding" should properly be spoken of: if at all times there is no alteration, if in every kind there is no alteration, if of itself there is no alteration, if by another too there is no alteration, and moreover if there is no arising — this alone is the character of permanent abiding (and this is precisely the unconditioned dharma, not that self and world which the outsiders reckon).

6. The Theory of a Former Deed as the Cause (all suffering is drawn on by the actions of former lives, and one wears out old actions through austerities)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts (as the sūtra sets out at length): all the suffering that people in the world undergo has "the deeds of former lives" as its cause (that is, the evil action of former lives as cause); by diligently cultivating austerities one "vomits out the old action" (that is, by extreme self-mortification in the present life), and by not committing new action-causes in the present life (that is, by not doing any unwholesome actions), thereafter one has no further outflows — because one has been wholesome throughout, it is said that afterward there are no outflows; being without outflows, action is exhausted (meaning evil action); action being exhausted, suffering is exhausted; suffering being exhausted, one realizes the end of suffering (meaning the exhaustion of the suffering of the remaining continuum of births). (This is the reckoning of the Unbound outsiders — the Nirgranthas, the Jainas.) Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this: he sees that "in the present life, human effort does not determine the result" — plainly some who use right methods draw suffering, and some who use wrong methods obtain pleasure; he thinks, if present-life action were the cause of suffering, this would be inverted; but since what is seen is not inverted, one can see that all suffering has the action of former lives as its cause.

One should question him in return: the suffering drawn on by present-life austerity — does it have "the action of former lives" as its cause, or "present-life austerity" as its cause? If it has the action of former lives as its cause, then your saying "one wears out old action by diligent austerity, so that no new action is committed in the present life and thereafter there are no outflows" cannot be maintained (since the suffering is the fruit of old action, unrelated to your present austerity); if it has present-life austerity as its cause, then your saying "all suffering has the action of former lives as its cause" cannot be maintained. Therefore both alternatives cannot be maintained. The treatise then states "the true character of the cause": the causes of suffering are in fact of three kinds — some suffering is purely by the action of former lives (as when one, by the dominant force of one's own action, is born into an evil destiny or a poor family); some suffering arises from mixed causes (as when, through wrongly serving a king, engaging in commerce, farming, robbery, or harming others, the one with merit obtains wealth and pleasure, while the one without merit, though he exerts effort, achieves nothing); and some is obtained purely by present-life effort (as with newly created inducing-action, hearing the Dharma and awakening to it through examination, cultivating the deportments, or learning a craft).

7. The Theory That Reckons a Sovereign God and the Like to Be the Creator (the Great Sovereign God and the like create everything)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: all that people in the world undergo has, in its entirety, "the transformation of the Great Sovereign God" as its cause, or "the transformation of some other person (deity)" as its cause. (This is the reckoning of those who hold the theory of an unequal cause such as the Sovereign God.) Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this: he sees that sentient beings in the world, in the matter of cause and effect, "do not turn according to their own wishes" — wishing to cultivate pure action they instead do evil, wishing to be born in a good destiny and pleasant place they fall into an evil destiny, wishing to experience pleasure they experience suffering; from this he thinks: the myriad things of the world must have some other maker, producer, and transformer as their "father," namely the Great Sovereign God, or some other deity.

Now question him in return (by the summary rubric: function, no substance-nature, subsumed or not-subsumed, useful or useless, being a cause, incurring faults): the transforming-function of the Great Sovereign God — does it have "action and skillful means" as its cause, or is it "without a cause"? If it has action and skillful means as its cause, then "only this function has action and skillful means as its cause, while the other things of the world do not" cannot be maintained; if it is without a cause, then "only this function exists without a cause, while the things of the world are not so" cannot be maintained. Ask again: is the Great Sovereign God "subsumed within the world" or "not subsumed"? If subsumed within the world, then it is the same as worldly dharmas, yet it can pervasively produce the world, which cannot be maintained; if not subsumed, then it is liberated, yet you say it can produce the world, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: does it produce and generate the world "having a use," or "having no use"? If having a use, then it is not autonomous with respect to that use, yet you say it is autonomous over the world, which cannot be maintained; if having no use, then with nothing required it yet produces the world, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: the world it produces — does it have "only the Great Sovereign God" as cause, or "take something else too" as cause? If it has only the Great Sovereign God as cause, then wherever there is the Great Sovereign God there is production, and wherever there is production there is the Great Sovereign God (the two being simultaneous), yet you say production has the Great Sovereign God as its cause, which cannot be maintained; if it takes something else (a desire-wish) too as cause, then what in turn is the cause of this "desire-wish"?… (The treatise presses on, layer upon layer, refuting each in turn.) Therefore this school cannot be maintained.

8. The Theory That Killing Is the True Dharma (sacrificial slaughter can produce rebirth in heaven)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: if in a sacrifice one first recites the spells and then slays living creatures, then the one who performs the sacrifice, the one who is slain, and the assistants all attain rebirth in heaven. Question: on what grounds? Answer: this runs counter to principle; it arises from flattery and deceit, and is not established by examining principle. In truth, it is that in the decadent age of strife and contention, the brahmins, going against the law of the ancient brahmins, falsely gave rise to this reckoning for the sake of eating meat.

One should question him in return: this spell-craft sacrificial method — is it in itself "Dharma (wholesome)" or "non-Dharma (unwholesome)"? If it is wholesome in its own substance, then "apart from killing one cannot draw on the fruit one loves oneself, yet it can turn non-Dharma into true Dharma" cannot be maintained; if it is unwholesome in its own substance, then "being itself a dharma that draws on unloved fruit, yet it can dispel another's unloved-fruit dharma" cannot be maintained. If he then rescues his view by saying "just as a worldly poison, when subdued by spell-craft, can do no harm, so this spell-craft is likewise," one should question him in return: can this spell-craft, which can quell outer poison, also quell the inner poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion? If it can quell them, then there ought nowhere and never be a single person in whom greed, hatred, and delusion have been stilled, which cannot be maintained; if it cannot quell them, then your saying "just as a spell can quell poison, so it can also quell non-Dharma action" cannot be maintained. Ask again: is this spell's function "universally operative" or "not universally operative"? If universally operative, then why does one not first take one's own beloved kin to be sacrificed? — this cannot be maintained; if not universal, then this function is not determinate, which cannot be maintained. Ask again: does this spell transform only the cause, or transform the effect as well? If it transforms only the cause, it has no power over the effect, which cannot be maintained; if it transforms the effect as well, then it ought right away to transform the sheep and the like into a lovely, wondrous form — why must one slay the sheep's body before taking on a heavenly body? — this cannot be maintained. Ask again: the one who makes this spell — has he the power and the compassion, or not? If he has, then "apart from slaying the creature, he cannot send the slain to rebirth in heaven" cannot be maintained; if he has not, then "the spell he makes can accomplish anything" cannot be maintained. Therefore it cannot be maintained. At the close the treatise states "the character of non-Dharma": whatever harms others and does not remedy a present fault; whatever those who cultivate the path commonly know to draw on unloved fruit; whatever all the wise decisively declare to be unwholesome; whatever one does not oneself desire; whatever arises from a defiled mind; whatever requires a wrongful spell before its efficacy is seen; and whatever is by nature indeterminate — all these are non-Dharma.

9. The Theory of the Finite and the Infinite (the world is finite / the world is infinite)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who, relying on worldly meditative absorptions, gives rise, regarding the world, to "the notion of the finite, the notion of the infinite, the notion of both the finite and the infinite, the notion of neither the finite nor the infinite" (as the sūtra sets out at length), and so asserts: the world is finite, the world is infinite, the world is both finite and infinite, the world is neither finite nor infinite. Among these: one who seeks the world's limit by "the terminus of time" — when he recollects back to the "eon of decay" he gives rise to the notion of the finite, and when he recollects back to the "eon of formation" he gives rise to the notion of the infinite; one who seeks it by "the breadth of space" — descending, having passed the Avīci hell there is nothing further to be found, and ascending, having passed the fourth meditative absorption there too is nothing further to be found, and so he gives rise to the notion of the finite regarding above and below, and to the notion of the infinite regarding the surrounding quarters; and one who, in order to counter this, merely changes the wording (the meaning being no different), gives rise to the notion of neither the finite nor the infinite.

One should question him in return: since the previous eon of decay, has any world arisen further, or not? If you say there has, then "the world is finite" cannot be maintained; if you say there has not, then "the world no longer exists, yet you are recollecting the world's limit" cannot be maintained. Therefore it cannot be maintained.

10. The Theory of Endless Equivocation Regarding the Deathless (when questioned, they answer vaguely and never directly)

There are four kinds of outsiders who "endlessly equivocate regarding the deathless" (as the sūtra sets out at length). When someone questions them about the wholesome and unwholesome, or about suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path, they call themselves "those who do not equivocate regarding the deathless," and, clinging everywhere to "the pure heaven of the deathless" so as not to be pinned down under questioning, they equivocate with vague words, or evade by turning to some other matter, or merely echo the questioner's words. Among them: the first is "one who has not yet awakened himself" (fearing false speech, and fearing that others will know his lack of wisdom, so he does not plainly say "I do not know"); the second is "one who has given rise to overweening conceit about his own realization" (fearing to be pinned down, fearing false speech, fearing wrong view, so he does not plainly say "I have a realization"); the third is "one who has awakened yet is not yet decided" (fearing wrong view, false speech, and being pinned down, so he does not plainly say "I am undecided") — these three all equivocate in words by turning to some other matter; the fourth is "one who is feeble, foolish, and dull" (fearing to be pinned down, unable to penetrate either the path to the most excellent rebirth or the path to the decisive good, and not even understanding worldly letters, so he does not plainly say "I am foolish and dull, I understand nothing at all," but only questions the other in return and equivocates by echoing the other's words). The occasions that give rise to these four, the persons who so reckon, and the principles that refute them are all as the sūtra states. Because these outsiders have many fears, they abide in this view; when someone comes and questions, they equivocate through flattering evasion. One should know this is subsumed under evil view, and therefore it cannot be maintained.

11. The Theory of the View of No-Cause (everything arises without a cause)

There are two kinds — those who rely on meditative absorption, and those who rely on pondering (as the sūtra sets out at length). Question: on what grounds do the outsiders who rely on pondering assert "the self and the world both arise without a cause"? Answer: in brief, it is that they "first see a lack of continuity" — the inner and outer things have measureless differences and arise in every kind of way; and moreover they sometimes see "conditions empty of any fruit-result," as when in the world a great wind sometimes suddenly springs up and in a moment stills again, a torrential river sometimes suddenly swells and in a moment dries up, fruit-trees sometimes flourish and in a moment wither — and from this they give rise to the view of no-cause.

One should question him in return: your "recollection of former abodes" — does it recall "something without substance" or "the self"? If it recalls something without substance, then a substanceless dharma has never been practiced-into and never been experienced-in-cognition, so how could it be recollected? — this cannot be maintained; if it recalls the self, yet you also reckon "the self was originally nonexistent and afterward suddenly arose," which cannot be maintained. Ask again: the manifold arising, or the sudden arising, of all the inner and outer things in the world — is it without a cause, or with a cause? If without a cause, then they arise suddenly yet also sometimes do not arise, which cannot be maintained (what is causeless ought to arise always or never); if with a cause, then "the self and the world arise without a cause" cannot be maintained. Therefore it cannot be maintained.

12. The Theory of the View of Annihilation (at death one is annihilated and nothing at all remains)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: so long as this coarse "body made of the four great elements" of mine holds together and is not destroyed, at that time there is sickness, there is a boil, there is an arrow (every kind of suffering); but once I die, the body is severed and destroyed and there is nothing at all, and at that time I am skillfully annihilated. The gods of the desire realm, the gods of the form realm, on up through the sphere of infinite space… the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in the formless realm, are all like this too (seven kinds of annihilationist view in all). Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this — he thinks: if there were still a body after I die, then "one would obtain a fruit-maturation without having done the action"; if my substance-nature were entirely and forever nonexistent, then there would be no "undergoing the fruit-maturation of action" at all; and since both of these are wrong, he asserts "once my body dies it is severed, destroyed, and nonexistent, like a tile or stone which, once broken, cannot be joined again."

One should question him in return: is it "the aggregates" that are annihilated, or "the self" that is annihilated? If you say the aggregates are annihilated, yet the substance of the aggregates is impermanent, with cause and effect arising in unbroken succession, to say it is annihilated cannot be maintained; if you say the self is annihilated, then all that you said before — "the coarse form-body has sickness, boil, and arrow; the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm…" — all cannot be maintained (those are the aggregates, not the self). Therefore it cannot be maintained.

13. The Theory of the View of Emptiness (denying cause and effect, denying all dharmas)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: there is no giving, no cherishing, no sacrifice… down to, there is no true arhat in the world; and further asserts: all dharmas whatsoever have no substance-character. Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this: relying on worldly meditative absorption, he sees "a donor who gave without ceasing his whole life long, yet after death was born into a poor and lowly family," and thinks "there is decidedly no (fruit of) giving, cherishing, or sacrifice"; he sees "one who practiced good or practiced evil his whole life, yet after death fell into an evil destiny or was born in heaven," and thinks "there is decidedly no good conduct or evil conduct, and no fruit-maturation of good or evil action"; he sees "a kṣatriya reborn after death into a brahmin family" and other such interchanges of caste, sees "one free of desire reborn in a lower ground," sees "a mother who died and was reborn as a daughter, a daughter who died and became a mother again, a father who became a son, a son who became a father again," and thinks "in the world there is decidedly no father and no mother"; he sees "a person who after death was reborn in the heaven of no-perception, or in the formless realm, or entered nirvāṇa, whose place of rebirth cannot be found," and thinks "there are decidedly no spontaneously-born beings"; or he himself gives rise to the overweening conceit "I am an arhat," yet at the point of death sees the signs of (further) birth, and thinks "there must be no true arhat in the world." There is also one who, being unable to awaken as it really is to the "profound, seemingly-profound, expression-transcending" dharma taught by the Tathāgata, and not reflecting according to right principle upon the established character of dharmas, gives rise to the view of emptiness — holding that "there is decidedly no substance-character of any dharma."

One should question him in return: is there "action to be experienced in the present birth, and also action to be experienced in a later birth," or is "everything to be experienced in the present birth"? If both exist, then all that you said — "there is no giving, no cherishing, no sacrifice, no good conduct, no evil conduct, no fruit-maturation of action, no this world, no other world" — cannot be maintained (for since there is action to be experienced later, a wholesome deed of this life is experienced only after death, which precisely explains the donor's rebirth in poverty); if you say there is no action to be experienced later, then those who perform every kind of pure and impure action ought, upon death, to "experience all at once the fruit-maturation of all their pure and impure action," which cannot be maintained. Ask again: whatever is produced from that womb-embryo or from that seed — are they, with respect to it, father and mother, or not father and mother? If you say they are father and mother, then your "no father and no mother" cannot be maintained; if you say they are not father and mother, then "being produced from that womb-embryo and that seed, yet said to be neither father nor mother" cannot be maintained (it is only that "when they are father and mother, they are not man and woman; when they are man and woman, they are not father and mother" — there is no fault of indeterminacy). Ask again: are there sentient beings "born in another place, whom the divine eye does not see," or not? If you say there are, then your "there are no spontaneously-born beings" cannot be maintained; if you say there are not, then you repudiate those "free of the desire for perception, free of the desire for form, free of the desire for the three realms," which cannot be maintained. Ask again: is there "an arhat-nature about which one gives rise to overweening conceit," or not? If you say there is, then "there must be no true arhat" cannot be maintained; if you say there is not, then "the person who has given rise to incorrect reflection and inverted-ly calls himself an arhat" ought instead to be the true arhat — which also cannot be maintained. Ask again: the three-character dharmas — the character of the perfected-real, the character of the dependent-arising, and the character of the wholly-imagined — are they existent or nonexistent? If you say existent, then "there is no substance-character of any dharma" cannot be maintained; if you say nonexistent, then there ought to be no inversion and also no defilement or purity, which cannot be maintained. Therefore the theory of the view of emptiness cannot be maintained.

14. The Theory That Falsely Reckons Some Caste Supreme (the brahmin caste is the most exalted)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: the brahmin is the most exalted caste and the kṣatriya and the rest are inferior castes; the brahmin is of the white-and-pure color-class and the other castes are of the black-and-defiled color-class; only the brahmin can be pure, and the others cannot; the brahmin is the son of the god Brahmā, born from the mouth and belly of the Great Brahmā King, issued forth from Brahmā, transformed by Brahmā, the blood-lineage of the Brahmā King. (This is the reckoning of the brahmins of the eon of strife.) Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this: he sees that among the true brahmins of the world some are endowed with moral discipline, and some are greedy for fame, gain, and reverence, and so he reckons in this way.

One should question him in return: is it "only the other castes that are born of father and mother," or "the brahmin too"? If only the other castes, yet the world plainly sees that brahmins too are born of a mother — you contradict what is plainly seen, which cannot be maintained; if the brahmin too is born of father and mother, then your saying "the brahmin is the most exalted caste and the kṣatriya and the rest are inferior" cannot be maintained. Just as they are alike in being born of a mother, so they are alike in performing wholesome and unwholesome action, in undergoing loved and unloved fruit, in being born into good and evil destinies, alike in entering the womb and being born through the completing of the three conditions, alike in practicing crafts and undertaking occupations, alike in having the wholesome and unwholesome, in having kings and ministers, in undergoing old age, sickness, and death, or in cultivating the holy life and realizing awakening — the brahmin has no inborn superiority of caste. Ask again: is one called superior "because born of a superior caste," or "by moral discipline, learning, and so forth"? If by being born of a superior caste, then your own treatises say "in a sacrifice, take the one superior in discipline, learning, and so forth as the standard," so you contradict yourselves; if by discipline, learning, and so forth, then your saying "the brahmin is the most exalted and the others are inferior" cannot be maintained. Therefore it cannot be maintained.

15. The Theory That Falsely Reckons Some Practice to Be Purity (sensual enjoyment, meditative absorption, bathing, or austerity is itself purity and liberation)

There are several schools of outsiders: one school asserts "if I am liberated, my mind attains mastery and my contemplation attains mastery, and I firmly take hold of and receive the subtle, wondrous five sense-pleasures of the gods, sporting, taking my delight, and enjoying them at will — this is to attain nirvāṇa in the present life, the supreme purity"; one school asserts "if one is separated from desire and from evil, unwholesome dharmas, and enters the first meditative absorption, on up to the fourth meditative absorption, this too is to attain nirvāṇa in the present life, the supreme purity"; one school asserts "if sentient beings bathe their bodies in the Sundarikā River (and the Bāhukā River, the Gayā River, the Sarasvatī River, the Ganges River, and so forth), all their evils are removed and destroyed — this is the supreme purity"; and there are still others who hold the "dog-vow, the ox-vow, the oil-and-ink vow, the naked vow, the ash vow, the self-mortification vow, the filth vow" to be purity. Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this: he supposes that "attaining unrestrained mastery, mastery over desire, and mastery over contemplative practice is supreme purity," yet does not know the character of these masteries as it really is; and some suppose that "by mortifying one's own body, evil is thereby liberated, or by committing an offense, the offense is thereby liberated."

One should question him in return: the one who sports and takes pleasure in the wondrous five sense-pleasures — has he separated from the greed of desire, or not? If he has separated, then "sporting and taking pleasure in the five sense-pleasures" cannot be maintained (having separated from desire, what pleasure would he crave?); if he has not separated, then "reckoning it liberation and purity" cannot be maintained. Ask again: the one who attains the first meditative absorption on up to fully abiding in the fourth meditative absorption — has he separated from all greed and desire, or not? If you say he has separated from all, then "merely abiding up to the fourth meditative absorption (not reaching the outflow-free)" cannot be maintained; if you say he has not separated from all desire, then "reckoning it the ultimate liberation and purity" cannot be maintained. Ask again: is ultimate purity "by inner purity" or "by outer purity"? If by the inner, then "attaining purity by bathing in a river" cannot be maintained; if by the outer, then "the inner defilements of greed, hatred, delusion, and so forth still remaining, and merely removing the outer stains, yet reckoning it purity" cannot be maintained. Ask again: does one attain purity "by taking hold of a pure thing" or "by taking hold of an impure thing"? If by taking hold of a pure thing, yet the world commonly sees dogs and the like to be impure, and you set up "taking hold of dogs and the like brings purity," which cannot be maintained; if by taking hold of an impure thing, then "being itself impure, yet able to make another pure" cannot be maintained. Ask again: the one who undertakes the dog-vow and the like — does he attain purity "by performing evil conduct of body and so forth," or "by performing right and wondrous conduct of body and so forth"? To reckon purity by performing evil conduct cannot be maintained; if it is by right and wondrous conduct, then holding the dog-vow and the like was for nothing (purity comes from right conduct, not from the dog-vow), which cannot be maintained. Therefore it cannot be maintained.

16. The Theory That Falsely Reckons Some Sign to Be Auspicious (the sun, moon, and constellations foretell fortune)

There is a certain kind of renunciant or brahmin who asserts: if in the world the sun and moon are eclipsed and the constellations lose their courses, then whatever one wishes to do will not be accomplished; if they are favorable, then whatever one wishes will be accomplished. For this reason he diligently makes offerings to the sun, moon, stars, and the like, offers to the fire and recites spells, sets out kuśa grass, and lays out jars full of bimba fruit and śaṅkha shells and the like. (This is the reckoning of the astrologers and diviners.) Question: on what grounds? Answer: on the authority of a received teaching and on reasoning. The reasoning is this: he has attained a worldly meditative absorption, and the people of the world all suppose him to be an arhat; those who wish to gain wealth and pleasure for themselves, or to have their prayed-for aim fulfilled, come to consult him; but he does not know as it really is the principle that "action and fruit correspond, and things arise from conditions," and merely, seeing that at the time when the sun and moon are eclipsed and the constellations run their courses the pure and impure action-retribution of sentient beings happens to ripen, reckons this to be made by the sun, moon, and stars, and sets up and proclaims it for those who put faith in the matter.

One should question him in return: the affairs of the world's rising and declining and the like — are they made "by the eclipse of the sun and moon, the courses of the constellations, and so forth," or made "by pure and impure action"? If you say made by the sun and moon and the like, then it is plainly seen that people, throughout their lives, perform meritorious or non-meritorious action accordingly and draw on these fruits of rising and declining, suffering and pleasure — this cannot be maintained; if you say made by pure and impure action, then "reckoning it made by the sun and moon and the like" cannot be maintained. Therefore it cannot be maintained.

Conclusion: The Sixteen Heterodox Theories One and All Fail to Stand

These sixteen heterodox theories, examined through the two gateways of "teaching and reasoning," and pursued throughout by right principle, in every single case cannot be maintained. (This is precisely the fruit that "attention contrary to principle" bears — thinking pointed in the wrong direction gives rise to these views that cannot stand.)

有尋有伺等三地 · 雜染施設建立 · 煩惱雜染The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Establishment of the Designation of Defilement · The Defilement of Afflictions

全文五層 →Full five layers →

白話Vernacular

五門的第五門「雜染等起」，講三種雜染：煩惱雜染、業雜染、生雜染（也就是惑、業、苦三重流轉）。這一篇是第一種「煩惱雜染」，分九項來說：自性、分別、因、位、門、上品、顛倒攝、差別、過患。

開頭：雜染分三·煩惱九門

什麼叫「雜染施設建立」？應當知道雜染有三種：一煩惱雜染、二業雜染、三生雜染。

先說煩惱雜染。提綱說：自性、若分別、因、位、及與門、上品、顛倒攝、差別、諸過患。要知道煩惱雜染，要從這九項——自性、分別、因、位、門、上品、顛倒攝、差別、過患——來理解。

一、煩惱的自性（它本來是什麼）

什麼是煩惱的自性？就是說：某個法一生起，它的相就「自然地不寂靜」地起來；由於它一起，「不寂靜」的行相就接連不斷地轉下去——這就是煩惱自性的略說。（簡單說：凡是讓心當下就躁動不安、又帶起一串躁動的，就是煩惱。）

二、煩惱的分別（分多少種）

煩惱可以這樣分：或立一種（就「煩惱雜染」這一義說）；或分兩種（見道所斷的、修道所斷的）；或分三種（繫屬欲界的、色界的、無色界的）；或分四種（欲界繫的有記無記、色界繫無記、無色界繫無記）；或分五種（見苦所斷、見集所斷、見滅所斷、見道所斷、修道所斷）；或分六種（貪、恚、慢、無明、見、疑）；或分七種，即七種隨眠（一欲貪隨眠、二瞋恚隨眠、三有貪隨眠、四慢隨眠、五無明隨眠、六見隨眠、七疑隨眠）；或分八種（貪、恚、慢、無明、疑、見，及見取、戒禁取二種取）；或分九種，即九結（一愛結、二恚結、三慢結、四無明結、五見結、六取結、七疑結、八嫉結、九慳結）；或分十種（一薩迦耶見、二邊執見、三邪見、四見取、五戒禁取、六貪、七恚、八慢、九無明、十疑）。

或分一百二十八煩惱：就是上面這十種煩惱，由「迷執十二種諦」來建立。哪十二種諦？欲界的苦諦、集諦，色界的苦諦、集諦，無色界的苦諦、集諦；欲界增上、它的遍智之果、由遍智所顯的滅諦、道諦，色界增上的滅諦、道諦，無色界增上的滅諦、道諦（合起來三界各四諦，共十二）。其中：對欲界的苦、集二諦，及對欲界增上的滅、道二諦，十種煩惱全都迷執；對色界的苦、集，及它增上的滅、道，除了「瞋」、其餘煩惱迷執（色界沒有瞋），無色界也一樣。至於「對治修」中（修道位）：欲界對治修中有六種煩惱迷執（除掉邪見、見取、戒禁取、疑這四種，剩貪恚慢無明見……即十中除四見一疑），色界對治修中有五種（在那六種中再除瞋），無色界也一樣。迷執怎麼算，障礙也照樣算。

接著一一說這十種煩惱的體性（都以「親近惡人、聽邪法、不如理作意」為緣，有的還加「任運失念」，而以「染污慧」或別的為體）：

薩迦耶見（我見）：由親近惡人、聽邪法、不如理作意，又由任運失念，於是隨著去看、去執著五取蘊（為我、我所），以「分別或不分別的染污慧」為體。邊執見：同樣的緣，把五取蘊執為我之後，再隨觀執它為「斷」或為「常」，以染污慧為體。邪見：同樣的緣，撥無因、撥無果、或撥無作用，壞掉真實的事，純以「分別的染污慧」為體。見取：同樣的緣，把薩迦耶見、邊執見、邪見以及它們的所依所緣所因等相應法，拿去跟別人的見比，執自己這套「最尊、最上、勝妙、第一」，純以分別染污慧為體。戒禁取：同樣的緣，就那些見、隨那些見而行的戒、禁，以及所依所緣所因等相應法，執它為「清淨、解脫、出離（之道）」，純以分別染污慧為體。貪：同樣的緣（含任運失念），對外、內可愛的境界起染著，以「分別或不分別的染著」為體。恚：對外、內不可愛的境界起憎恚為體。慢：對外、內的高下勝劣起「高舉」為體。無明：對所知的事起「染污的無知」為體。疑：就所知的事，純以「分別的、猶豫不定的覺」為體。

三、煩惱的因（什麼引起煩惱）

煩惱的因有六種：一由所依（即隨眠——煩惱的種子潛伏，遇緣起現行）、二由所緣（順煩惱的境界現在眼前）、三由親近（隨學惡人）、四由邪教（聽了邪法）、五由數習（過去一再串習的勢力）、六由作意（起了不如理作意）。由這六因，種種煩惱就生起。

四、煩惱的位（煩惱有哪些狀態）

煩惱的位略有七種：一隨眠位（潛伏為種子）、二纏位（現行纏縛）、三分別起位（後天邪見邪教引起的）、四俱生位（與生俱來的）、五耎位（弱）、六中位（中）、七上位（強）。由兩個原因說「隨眠所隨眠（潛伏跟隨）」：一是種子跟隨著、二是由那增上的事跟隨著。

五、煩惱的門（煩惱從哪些門惱人）

煩惱惱人，略由兩門：纏門、隨眠門。纏門有五種：一令人住於不寂靜、二障礙善法、三發起惡趣的惡行、四招感現法中的鄙賤、五能感生等苦。隨眠門怎麼惱人？因為它給諸「纏」當所依、又能引發生等苦。又由七門，一切煩惱能對「見、修」二道作障礙：邪解了、不解了、又邪解又不解、邪解了而迷執、它的因依處、它怖畏所生、任運現行——這七門。

六、煩惱的上品相（什麼叫最重的煩惱）

什麼是煩惱的上品相？就是「猛利相」和「尤重相」。這相略有六種：一由犯（由這煩惱纏，毀犯一切學處）、二由生（由此生到欲界的苦惡趣中）、三由相續（貪等行的、諸根成熟而正當盛年、又是無涅槃法的人）、四由事（緣著尊重的福田、或功德田、或不應行的對象而起）、五由起惡業（由此煩惱纏，以特別適悅的心起身語業）、六由究竟（這是自性上品所攝，要到最初的軟對治道才斷得了）。

七、煩惱的顛倒攝（煩惱與七顛倒）

煩惱的顛倒攝，就是七顛倒：一想倒、二見倒、三心倒，四於無常起常倒、五於苦起樂倒、六於不淨起淨倒、七於無我起我倒。想倒：在無常、苦、不淨、無我之中，起常、樂、淨、我的妄想分別。見倒：就在那妄想所分別的上頭，忍可、欲樂、建立、執著。心倒：就在那執著上起貪等煩惱。

要知道煩惱對顛倒略有三種關係：有的是「顛倒的根本」、有的是「顛倒的體」、有的是「顛倒的等流」。顛倒的根本，是無明。顛倒的體，是薩迦耶見、邊執見的一分、見取、戒禁取，以及貪。顛倒的等流，是邪見、邊執見的另一分、恚、慢及疑。其中：薩迦耶見是「無我計我」倒，邊執見的一分是「無常計常」倒，見取是「不淨計淨」倒，戒禁取是「於苦計樂」倒，貪通兩種（不淨計淨倒、於苦計樂倒）。

八、煩惱的差別（煩惱的種種異名）

煩惱有種種差別的名稱，要知道：結、縛、隨眠、隨煩惱、纏、暴流、軛、取、繫、蓋、株杌、垢、常害、箭、所有、根、惡行、漏、匱、燒、惱、有諍、火、熾然、稠林、拘礙——這一類都是煩惱的差別名。為什麼這樣叫？能把苦黏合起來，叫「結」；令人對善行不能隨意做，叫「縛」；被一切世間增上的種子跟隨，叫「隨眠」；顛倒染污心，叫「隨煩惱」；屢屢現行，叫「纏」；深難渡過、順流漂蕩，叫「暴流」；邪行的方便（套具），叫「軛」；能執取自身相續不斷，叫「取」；難可解脫，叫「繫」；蓋覆真實義，叫「蓋」；壞掉善的稼田，叫「株杌」（樹根殘樁）；自性染污，叫「垢」；常能為害，叫「常害」；不靜之相、遠遠就隨來，叫「箭」；能攝持依事，叫「所有」；不善的所依，叫「根」；邪行的自性，叫「惡行」；流動其心，叫「漏」；令受用永不滿足，叫「匱」；令所欲常匱乏，叫「燒」；能引衰損，叫「惱」；能當鬥訟爭競的因，叫「有諍」；燒掉積集的善根薪柴，叫「火」；像大熱病，叫「熾然」；種種自身大樹聚集（成林），叫「稠林」；令眾生樂著種種妙欲塵、又障證出世法，叫「拘礙」。

這些差別，佛隨著哪一類煩惱增強，就在那種種煩惱門裡建立不同的名目，並各配定數：「結」是九結（愛結等，如前說）；「縛」是三縛（貪、瞋、癡）；「隨眠」是七隨眠（欲貪隨眠等，如前說）；「隨煩惱」是三隨煩惱（貪瞋癡）；「纏」是八纏（無慚、無愧、惛沈、睡眠、掉舉、惡作、嫉妬、慳悋）；「暴流」是四暴流（欲暴流、有暴流、見暴流、無明暴流），「軛」也四種（同暴流）；「取」是四取（欲取、見取、戒禁取、我語取）；「繫」是四繫（貪身繫、瞋身繫、戒禁取身繫、此實執取身繫）；「蓋」是五蓋（貪欲蓋、瞋恚蓋、惛沈睡眠蓋、掉舉惡作蓋、疑蓋）；「株杌」是三株杌（貪瞋癡），像株杌一樣，「垢、常害、箭、所有、惡行」也都是三（貪瞋癡）；「根」是三不善根（貪不善根、瞋不善根、癡不善根）；「漏」是三漏（欲漏、有漏、無明漏）；「匱」是三匱（貪瞋癡），像匱一樣，「燒、惱、有諍、火、熾然、稠林」也都是三；「拘礙」是五拘礙（一顧戀其身、二顧戀諸欲、三樂相雜住、四闕隨順教、五得微少善便生喜足）。

九、煩惱的過患（煩惱有什麼害處）

要知道煩惱有無量的過患：煩惱一起，先擾亂自己的心，接著對所緣發起顛倒，令種種隨眠都更堅固，令等流行接連不斷地轉。它能引自害、引他害、引兩邊都害；生現世罪、生後世罪、生兩世罪；令人受那生死身心的憂苦；能引生種種大苦；能令相續遠離涅槃之樂；能令退失種種勝善法；能令財物衰損散失；能令進到大眾中得不到無畏、悚懼沒有威儀；能令惡名流布十方、常被智者訶毀；令臨終時生大憂悔；令身壞後墮諸惡趣、生地獄中；令不能證得自己究竟的勝義利益。這樣的過患，無量無邊。

The fifth of the five gates, "the arising of defilement," treats three kinds of defilement: the defilement of afflictions, the defilement of karma, and the defilement of birth — that is, the threefold cycling of affliction, karma, and suffering (delusion, deed, and pain). This piece is the first kind, "the defilement of afflictions," set out under nine items: intrinsic nature, differentiation, cause, phase, gate, the higher grade, subsumption under inversion, distinctions, and dangers.

Opening: Defilement Divided in Three · Afflictions in Nine Gates

What is called "the establishment of the designation of defilement"? One should know that defilement is of three kinds: first, the defilement of afflictions; second, the defilement of karma; third, the defilement of birth.

We speak first of the defilement of afflictions. The summary heading says: intrinsic nature; and differentiation; cause; phase; and gate; the higher grade; subsumption under inversion; distinctions; the various dangers. One should know the defilement of afflictions through these nine items — intrinsic nature, differentiation, cause, phase, gate, the higher grade, subsumption under inversion, distinctions, and dangers.

One · The Intrinsic Nature of Afflictions (What It Is in Itself)

What is the intrinsic nature of afflictions? It is this: when a certain dharma arises, its mark "of itself grows unquiet"; and because it has arisen, the mode of the "unquiet" turns on unbroken thereafter — this is the intrinsic nature of afflictions, stated in brief. (Put simply: whatever makes the mind, in that very moment, agitated and unsettled, and stirs up a train of agitation, is an affliction.)

Two · The Differentiation of Afflictions (How Many Kinds Are Set Up)

Afflictions may be divided thus: one may posit a single kind (speaking of the one sense, "the defilement of afflictions"); or divide them into two kinds (those abandoned by the path of seeing, and those abandoned by the path of cultivation); or into three kinds (those bound to the desire realm, to the form realm, to the formless realm); or into four kinds (the marked and the unmarked bound to the desire realm, the unmarked bound to the form realm, the unmarked bound to the formless realm); or into five kinds (abandoned by seeing suffering, by seeing origination, by seeing cessation, by seeing the path, by cultivation); or into six kinds (greed, hatred, conceit, ignorance (avidyā), [wrong] view, doubt); or into seven kinds, namely the seven latent proclivities (first, the latent proclivity of desire-greed; second, the latent proclivity of ill-will; third, the latent proclivity of existence-greed; fourth, the latent proclivity of conceit; fifth, the latent proclivity of ignorance; sixth, the latent proclivity of view; seventh, the latent proclivity of doubt); or into eight kinds (greed, hatred, conceit, ignorance, doubt, view, and the two graspings — view-grasping and the grasping of mere rule and vow); or into nine kinds, namely the nine fetters (first, the fetter of craving; second, the fetter of hatred; third, the fetter of conceit; fourth, the fetter of ignorance; fifth, the fetter of view; sixth, the fetter of grasping; seventh, the fetter of doubt; eighth, the fetter of envy; ninth, the fetter of stinginess); or into ten kinds (first, the view of a real self within the aggregates; second, the view seizing an extreme; third, wrong view; fourth, view-grasping; fifth, the grasping of mere rule and vow; sixth, greed; seventh, hatred; eighth, conceit; ninth, ignorance; tenth, doubt).

Or they may be divided into one hundred twenty-eight afflictions: that is, the ten afflictions above, established through "deludedly seizing the twelve [aspects of] the truths." Which twelve [aspects of the] truths? The truth of suffering and the truth of origination in the desire realm; the truth of suffering and the truth of origination in the form realm; the truth of suffering and the truth of origination in the formless realm; the truth of cessation revealed by, and the truth of the path that is, the dominant complete-knowledge and its fruit within the desire realm; the truths of cessation and of the path dominant within the form realm; and the truths of cessation and of the path dominant within the formless realm (taken together, the four truths in each of the three realms, twelve in all). Among these: toward the truths of suffering and origination in the desire realm, and toward the dominant truths of cessation and path in the desire realm, all ten afflictions deludedly seize; toward the suffering and origination of the form realm, and toward its dominant cessation and path, all the afflictions save "hatred" deludedly seize (the form realm has no hatred), and the formless realm is likewise. As for within "the cultivation that counteracts" (the phase of the path of cultivation): within the counteracting cultivation of the desire realm, six afflictions deludedly seize (removing the four — wrong view, view-grasping, the grasping of mere rule and vow, and doubt — leaving greed, hatred, conceit, ignorance, view … that is, from the ten, removing four views and one doubt); within the counteracting cultivation of the form realm there are five (from those six, further removing hatred); and the formless realm is likewise. As the deluded seizing is reckoned, so too is the obstruction reckoned.

Next, one by one, the substance of these ten afflictions is stated (all of them taking as their condition "keeping company with bad persons, hearing wrong teachings, and unmethodical attention," some adding "spontaneous loss of mindfulness," and taking as their substance "defiled discernment" or something else):

The view of a real self within the aggregates (the self-view): by keeping company with bad persons, hearing wrong teachings, and unmethodical attention, and by spontaneous loss of mindfulness, one comes to look upon and cling to the five appropriating aggregates (as self and as belonging to self), taking as its substance "the defiled discernment, whether discriminating or non-discriminating." The view seizing an extreme: by the same conditions, having seized the five appropriating aggregates as self, one then looks upon and seizes them further as "annihilated" or as "eternal," taking defiled discernment as its substance. Wrong view: by the same conditions, one denies cause, denies effect, or denies [karmic] operation, ruining the real matter, taking purely "discriminating defiled discernment" as its substance. View-grasping: by the same conditions, one takes the view of a real self, the view seizing an extreme, and wrong view, together with their supports, objects, causes, and associated dharmas, and, comparing them against the views of others, clings to one's own set as "most honored, most high, most excellent, foremost," taking purely discriminating defiled discernment as its substance. The grasping of mere rule and vow: by the same conditions, toward those views, and toward the rules and vows practiced in accordance with those views, together with their supports, objects, causes, and associated dharmas, one clings to them as "the [path to] purity, liberation, and emergence," taking purely discriminating defiled discernment as its substance. Greed: by the same conditions (including spontaneous loss of mindfulness), toward outer and inner lovable objects one gives rise to defiled attachment, taking as its substance "the defiled attachment, whether discriminating or non-discriminating." Hatred: toward outer and inner unlovable objects, giving rise to loathing-and-ill-will as its substance. Conceit: toward the high and low, the superior and inferior, among outer and inner [things], giving rise to "self-exaltation" as its substance. Ignorance: toward the matters to be known, giving rise to "defiled not-knowing (ajñāna)" as its substance. Doubt: toward the matters to be known, taking purely "the discriminating, wavering, undecided cognition" as its substance.

Three · The Cause of Afflictions (What Gives Rise to Afflictions)

The causes of afflictions are of six kinds: first, by the support (that is, the latent proclivity — the seed of affliction lying dormant, arising into activity upon meeting a condition); second, by the object (an object conducive to affliction appearing before one); third, by keeping company (following and learning from bad persons); fourth, by wrong teaching (having heard wrong teachings); fifth, by repeated practice (the force of having practiced [it] again and again in the past); sixth, by attention (having given rise to unmethodical attention). By these six causes, the various afflictions arise.

Four · The Phase of Afflictions (What States Afflictions Have)

The phases of afflictions are, in brief, of seven kinds: first, the phase of the latent proclivity (lying dormant as a seed); second, the phase of enwrapment (present activity binding one round); third, the phase of the discrimination-arisen (occasioned by acquired wrong views and wrong teachings); fourth, the phase of the innate (arising together with birth); fifth, the weak phase; sixth, the middling phase; seventh, the strong phase. For two reasons is it said that "the latent proclivity lies latent and follows along": first, because the seed follows along; second, because [affliction] follows along by way of that dominant matter.

Five · The Gate of Afflictions (Through Which Gates Afflictions Vex)

Afflictions vex a person, in brief, through two gates: the gate of enwrapment and the gate of the latent proclivity. The gate of enwrapment is of five kinds: first, it makes one dwell in the unquiet; second, it obstructs wholesome dharmas; third, it sets in motion the evil conduct of the evil destinies; fourth, it draws on baseness and lowliness within the present life; fifth, it is able to draw on the sufferings of birth and the rest. How does the gate of the latent proclivity vex one? Because it serves as the support for the "enwrapments," and is able to draw forth the sufferings of birth and the rest. Again, through seven gates, all afflictions are able to obstruct the two paths, of seeing and of cultivation: wrongly comprehending; not comprehending; both wrongly comprehending and not comprehending; wrongly comprehending and thereby deludedly seizing; the site that is its causal support; what is born of dread of it; spontaneous present activity — these seven gates.

Six · The Higher-Grade Mark of Afflictions (What Is Called the Gravest Affliction)

What is the higher-grade mark of afflictions? It is the "keen-and-sharp mark" and the "especially heavy mark." This mark is, in brief, of six kinds: first, by transgression (through this enwrapment of affliction, transgressing against all the precepts of training); second, by birth (through this, being born into the suffering evil destinies of the desire realm); third, by continuity (a person of greed-and-the-rest conduct, whose faculties are mature and who is in the very prime of life, and who is moreover of the class without the dharma of nirvāṇa); fourth, by object (arising with reference to an object of reverence — a field of merit, or a field of virtue — or an object that ought not to be approached); fifth, by giving rise to evil karma (through this enwrapment of affliction, giving rise to bodily and verbal karma with a specially gratified mind); sixth, by the ultimate (this is subsumed under the intrinsically higher grade, cut off only upon the very first, softest counteracting path).

Seven · The Subsumption of Afflictions under Inversion (Afflictions and the Seven Inversions)

The subsumption of afflictions under inversion is the seven inversions: first, the inversion of perception; second, the inversion of view; third, the inversion of mind; fourth, the inversion [taking] the impermanent as permanent; fifth, the inversion [taking] suffering as pleasure; sixth, the inversion [taking] the impure as pure; seventh, the inversion [taking] the not-self as self. The inversion of perception: within the impermanent, suffering, impure, and not-self, giving rise to the deluded imagining-and-discrimination of the permanent, pleasant, pure, and self. The inversion of view: upon that very [content] discriminated by deluded imagining, endorsing, delighting in, establishing, and clinging to it. The inversion of mind: upon that very clinging, giving rise to greed and the other afflictions.

One should know that afflictions bear, in brief, three [kinds of] relation to inversion: some are "the root of inversion," some are "the substance of inversion," and some are "the outflow of inversion." The root of inversion is ignorance. The substance of inversion is the view of a real self, one portion of the view seizing an extreme, view-grasping, the grasping of mere rule and vow, and greed. The outflow of inversion is wrong view, the other portion of the view seizing an extreme, hatred, conceit, and doubt. Among these: the view of a real self is the inversion [that] "reckons a self where there is no self"; the one portion of the view seizing an extreme is the inversion [that] "reckons permanence where there is impermanence"; view-grasping is the inversion [that] "reckons purity where there is impurity"; the grasping of mere rule and vow is the inversion [that] "reckons pleasure amid suffering"; greed pertains to two [inversions] (the inversion reckoning purity where there is impurity, and the inversion reckoning pleasure amid suffering).

Eight · The Distinctions of Afflictions (The Various Alternate Names of Afflictions)

Afflictions have various distinguishing names; one should know them: fetter, bond, latent proclivity, secondary affliction, enwrapment, flood, yoke, grasping, tie, hindrance, stump, filth, constant harm, arrow, possession, root, evil conduct, outflow, want, burning, vexation, contention, fire, blazing, dense thicket, entanglement — such a class as this are all the distinguishing names of afflictions. Why are they so called? Because it can glue suffering together, it is called "fetter"; because it makes a person unable to act at will toward wholesome conduct, it is called "bond"; because it is followed along by the dominant seed of all the worldly, it is called "latent proclivity"; because it invertedly defiles the mind, it is called "secondary affliction"; because it comes into activity again and again, it is called "enwrapment"; because it is deep and hard to cross, drifting along with the current, it is called "flood"; because it is the contrivance (the harness) of wrong conduct, it is called "yoke"; because it can seize and take one's own continuum unbroken, it is called "grasping"; because it is hard to be freed from, it is called "tie"; because it covers over the real meaning, it is called "hindrance"; because it ruins the wholesome field of crops, it is called "stump" (the stump-remnant of a tree's root); because it is intrinsically defiled, it is called "filth"; because it can constantly do harm, it is called "constant harm"; because its mark is unquiet and follows along from afar, it is called "arrow"; because it can hold together the supporting matter, it is called "possession"; because it is the support of the unwholesome, it is called "root"; because it is the intrinsic nature of wrong conduct, it is called "evil conduct"; because it makes the mind flow out, it is called "outflow"; because it makes [one's] enjoyment never satisfied, it is called "want"; because it makes what one desires be forever wanting, it is called "burning"; because it can draw on decline and loss, it is called "vexation"; because it can serve as the cause of quarrel, litigation, and strife, it is called "contention"; because it burns up the kindling-firewood of the accumulated wholesome roots, it is called "fire"; because it is like a great fever, it is called "blazing"; because [it is] the gathering-together of the various great trees of one's own person (into a forest), it is called "dense thicket"; because it makes beings delight in and cling to the various fine desire-dusts, and moreover obstructs the realization of the world-transcending dharma, it is called "entanglement."

These distinctions: the Buddha, according to whichever class of affliction is the more intensified, establishes different designations within those various affliction-gates, and assigns to each a fixed number. "Fetter" is the nine fetters (the fetter of craving and the rest, as stated before); "bond" is the three bonds (greed, hatred, delusion); "latent proclivity" is the seven latent proclivities (the latent proclivity of desire-greed and the rest, as stated before); "secondary affliction" is the three secondary afflictions (greed, hatred, delusion); "enwrapment" is the eight enwrapments (shamelessness, non-embarrassment, torpor, drowsiness, restlessness, remorse, envy, stinginess); "flood" is the four floods (the flood of desire, the flood of existence, the flood of view, the flood of ignorance), and "yoke" is likewise fourfold (the same as the floods); "grasping" is the four graspings (the grasping of desire, view-grasping, the grasping of mere rule and vow, the grasping that speaks of a self); "tie" is the four ties (the bodily tie of greed, the bodily tie of hatred, the bodily tie of the grasping of mere rule and vow, the bodily tie of seizing "this alone is real"); "hindrance" is the five hindrances (the hindrance of desire-greed, the hindrance of ill-will, the hindrance of torpor-and-drowsiness, the hindrance of restlessness-and-remorse, the hindrance of doubt); "stump" is the three stumps (greed, hatred, delusion), and like the stump, so too "filth, constant harm, arrow, possession, evil conduct" are all three (greed, hatred, delusion); "root" is the three unwholesome roots (the unwholesome root of greed, the unwholesome root of hatred, the unwholesome root of delusion); "outflow" is the three outflows (the outflow of desire, the outflow of existence, the outflow of ignorance); "want" is the three wants (greed, hatred, delusion), and like want, so too "burning, vexation, contention, fire, blazing, dense thicket" are all three; "entanglement" is the five entanglements (first, doting on one's own body; second, doting on the desires; third, delighting in dwelling amid mingled company; fourth, lacking [teaching] to accord with and follow; fifth, gaining some slight good and thereupon giving rise to complacent satisfaction).

Nine · The Dangers of Afflictions (What Harm Afflictions Do)

One should know that afflictions have measureless dangers: when an affliction arises, it first disturbs one's own mind, then gives rise to inversion toward the object, makes the various latent proclivities all the firmer, and makes the outflow-current turn on unbroken. It can draw on harm to oneself, harm to others, and harm to both; it gives rise to fault in the present life, fault in the later life, and fault in both lives; it makes a person undergo the mental and bodily grief-and-suffering of that birth-and-death; it can draw forth various great sufferings; it can make the continuum grow far from the bliss of nirvāṇa; it can make one fall away from the various excellent wholesome dharmas; it can make one's wealth and goods decline, be lost, and scatter; it can make one, entering the great assembly, unable to gain fearlessness, cowering and without dignified bearing; it can make an evil name spread throughout the ten directions, ever censured and reviled by the wise; it makes one, at the time of death, give rise to great grief and remorse; it makes one, after the body's breaking, fall into the evil destinies and be born in the hells; it makes one unable to realize one's own ultimate benefit of the supreme meaning. Dangers such as these are measureless, boundless.

有尋有伺等三地 · 雜染施設 · 業雜染The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Defilement · The Defilement of Karma

全文五層 →Full five layers →

白話Vernacular

三雜染的第二重「業」（惑造的業）。分九項：自性、分別、因、位、門、增上、顛倒、差別、過患。

開頭：業雜染九門

什麼叫業雜染？提綱說：自性、若分別、因、位、及與門、增上品、顛倒、差別、諸過患。應當由自性、分別、因、位、門、上品、顛倒、差別與過患這九個方面，依次解釋而了知業雜染。

一、業的自性

什麼是業的自性？就是說：某個法生起時，「造作」的相起來了；由於它一起，身的造作（身行）、語的造作（語行）就在它之後接連造作而轉——這就是業的自性。（簡單說：心一動要造作，帶出身、口的行為，就是業。）

二、業的分別（十善惡業道·逐句經釋）

業的分別，要從兩方面看：一從「造業者（補特伽羅）的相」、二從「業本身（法相）」。這兩方面，都落在善、不善的「十種業道」上：殺生／離殺生、不與取（偷盜）／離不與取、欲邪行／離欲邪行、妄語／離妄語、離間語／離離間語、麁惡語／離麁惡語、綺語／離綺語、貪欲／離貪欲、瞋恚／離瞋恚、邪見／離邪見。

（甲）造業者的相——逐句解經

論引經文，把每一業道的「造業者」相，一句一句解開：

殺生者：「殺生者」是總句。「最極暴惡」——是殺害心正現前。「血塗其手」——是為了完成殺、身相起了變化。「害、極害、執」——是斷他命、解他支節、為謀生計而殺。「無有羞恥」——是自己造罪。「無有哀愍」——是給對方招來不愛之苦。又經說「（於）一切有情所」：有個出家外道名叫「無繫」（尼乾子），說「百踰繕那以內的眾生才有律儀、不律儀（之別）」（範圍外就不算），為對治他，才說「一切有情所」（不限範圍）；那外道又說「樹等外物也有生命」，為對治他，才說「真實眾生所」（簡別非真實眾生）——這就顯示了「真實福德的遠離（殺）對治」和「不實福德的遠離對治」兩面。以上這些句，顯示「加行殺害」（有預謀的殺）。「乃至極下、捃多、蟻等諸眾生所」——這句顯示「無擇殺害」（不揀大小，連蟲蟻都殺）。「於殺生事若未遠離」——這句顯示遇緣還可出離：只要還沒遠離，就名「殺生者」。這些句的略義，是顯示殺生的相貌、作用、因緣，及事用差別；也顯示殺生的如實、差別、所殺的生、與名「殺生者」。又這些句，顯的是「能殺生的人的相」，不是「殺生這個法的相」。

不與取者（偷盜）：「不與取者」是總句。「於他所有」——指他人所攝的財穀等。「若在聚落」——指那財物在聚落中積集、或移轉。「若閑靜處」——指那財物在閑靜處生、集、或移轉。「即此名為可盜物數」——指所不與、不捨、不棄之物。「若自執受」——執為己有。「不與而取」——他有時資具缺少，便執為己有。「不與而樂」——樂於去做偷盜的事。「於所不與、不捨、不棄而生希望」——劫盜他人之物、想為己有。（這裡分別「不與、不捨、不棄」：物主沒有像還債那樣先給你的，叫「不與」；物主對取者不肯捨給的，叫「不捨」；物主對眾生不隨其所欲受用而拋棄的，叫「不棄」。）「自為而取」——就是不與而取、不與而樂。「饕餮而取」——就是對不與不捨不棄之物起貪求。「不清而取」——爭奪之物被他人勝過、自己沒能洗清（爭贏）。「不淨而取」——雖勝過他、卻被過失之垢所染。「有罪而取」——能招感現世、後世的不愛果。「於不與取若未遠離」——如前面殺生那樣（未遠離就名不與取者）。其餘業道也都這樣。這裡的略義是：由盜此物而成不與取、若在某處按其差別如實劫盜、由劫盜而得此過失——這是總義。又這裡也顯「不與取者的相」，不是「不與取這個法的相」，其餘也都該這樣知道。

欲邪行者：「欲邪行者」是總句。「於諸父母等所守護」——像父母對自己的處女兒，為了將來嫁人，勤加守護、時時觀察、不讓她與別人做鄙穢之事；父母若不在，再由至親兄弟姊妹守護；若無，再由其餘親屬守護；若無，（女子）恐損家族而自我守護；或公婆為自己兒子而守護。「有治罰者」——指國王或執法者，以治罰之法守護。「有障礙者」——指守門人守護。這裡略顯「未嫁者」的三種守護：一由尊重的至親眷屬及自己守護、二由國王執法者守護、三由守門者守護。「他妻妾」——已嫁他人的。「他所攝」——未嫁、但為三種守護所守護的。「若由凶詐」——用矯亂手段而行邪行。「若由強力」——對父母等公然強逼。「若由隱伏」——不當面、暗中相欣欲。「而行欲行」——兩兩交會。「即於此事非理欲心而行邪行」——於非道、非處、非時，在自己妻妾身上犯的罪失。略義是：略顯所行、行的差別、與欲邪行。

妄語者：「妄語者」是總句。「若王」——指王家。「若彼使」——指執法者。「若別」——指長者居士。「若眾」——指那聚集（的人）。「若大集中」——指四方人眾聚集處。「若已知」——隨前三（王、使、別）所經的語言。「若已見」——隨曾見所經的語言。「若由自因」——或因怖畏、或因味著（自因如此，他因也一樣）：因怖畏，是怕被殺、縛、治罰、黜責等；因味著，是為財穀珍寶等。「知而說妄語」——明明覆藏了想、欲、見（真相）而說話。略義是：依處、異說、因緣、壞想，而說妄語。

離間語者：「離間語者」是總句。「若為破壞」——由破壞（他人和合）的意樂。「聞彼語已向此宣說、聞此語已向彼宣說」——隨所聞、說順乖離之語。「破壞和合」——能生起「喜歡別離」。「隨印別離」——能乖違、使「喜歡（別離）更生」。「憙壞和合」——對已生的喜別離、心染污。「樂印別離」——對乖違的喜更生、心染污。「說能離間語」——或對方沒聽見、或用其他方便。略義是：略顯離間的意樂、離間未壞時的方便、離間已壞時的方便、離間的染污心、及其他方便。

麁惡語者：「麁惡語者」是總句。（這一段反面先顯「善語」的種種美名——）由尸羅（戒）支所攝，故名「語無擾動」；文句美滑，故名「悅耳」；由增上欲解所發起、非假偽、非諂媚，故名「稱心」；不增益（不浮誇）、應順時機、引義利，故名「可愛」；趣向涅槃宮，故名「先首」；文句可玩味，故名「美妙」；善於解釋文句，故名「分明」；顯然有趣向，故名「易可解了」；攝受正法，故名「可施功勞」；離愛味心所發起，故名「無所依止」；不過度量，故名「非可厭逆」；相續廣大，故名「無邊無盡」。又從「無擾動語」到「無邊無盡語」，略攝為三種語：一尸羅律儀所攝語（一種）、二等歡喜語（三種）、三說法語（其餘）。最後這（說法語）又分三：一所趣圓滿語（初一）、二文詞圓滿語（次二）、三方便圓滿語（其餘）。又：對未來世可愛樂，名「可愛語」；對過去世可愛樂，名「可樂語」；對現在世的事及領受可愛樂，名「可欣語、可意語」——這即是「等歡喜語」，名「無量眾生可愛可樂可欣可意語」；說法語，名「三摩呬多語」；尸羅支所攝語，名「由無悔等漸次能引三摩地語」。（回到反面：）「毒螫語」——是毀謗他人之言，縱放瞋毒；「麁獷語」——是惱亂他人之言，發出苦觸；其餘麁惡語，翻轉前面的白品（善語）就知道。

綺語者：「綺語者」是總句。在「邪舉罪」（不當地揭人罪）時，有五種：說得不是時候，名「非時語」；說得不真實，名「非實語」；說的引出無義，名「非義語」；說得粗獷，名「非法語」；話挾著瞋恚，名「非靜語」。又在「邪說法」時：不正思審就宣說，名「不思量語」；為了勝過聽者而說，名「不靜語」；不是時候而說、前後義趣不相連屬，名「雜亂語」；不合道理之因而說，名「非有教語」；引不相應的東西作譬喻，名「非有喻語」；顯穢染，名「非有法語」。又在歌笑嬉戲、看舞樂戲笑俳說等時，有引無義之語。略義是：顯示前說的（邪舉罪、邪說法、嬉戲）三時綺語。

貪欲者：「貪欲者」是總句。「由猛利貪」——對他人所有，由貪增上，想為己有、起決定的執著。「於財」——世俗財類。「具」——所受用的資具（財、具二者總名為「物」）。「凡彼所有定當屬我」——這顯貪欲生起的行相。略義是：顯示貪欲的自性、所緣、行相。

瞋恚心者：「瞋恚心者」是總句。「惡意分別」——對他有情，由瞋恚增上力、想損害、起決定執。「當殺」——想傷害其身。「當害」——想損惱其身。「當為衰損」——想令他財物損耗。「彼當自獲種種憂惱」——想令他自己失去財物。略義如前。

邪見者：「邪見者」是總句。「起如是見」——顯自心忍可、欲樂將說之義。「立如是論」——顯授予他人將說之義。「無有施與、無有愛養、無有祠祀」——由三種意樂撥無布施：一財物意樂、二清淨意樂、三祀天意樂（供養火天名祠祀）。又顯撥無「戒、修所生的善能對治所治」、及撥無「施所生的善能對治所治」，所以說「無有妙行、無有惡行」。又顯撥無「這三種善能對治所治所得的果」，所以說「無有妙行、惡行二業的果及異熟」。又顯撥無「流轉的依處緣」，所以說「無有此世、無有他世」。又顯撥無「流轉的所託緣及種子緣」，所以說「無母無父」。又顯撥無「流轉的士夫（受生者）」，所以說「無有化生有情」。又顯撥無「流轉的對治還滅」，所以說「世間無有真阿羅漢」乃至廣說。（經接著說阿羅漢的正面相：）已趣向各別煩惱的寂靜，名「正至」；於諸有情遠離邪行、行無倒行，名「正行」；因（修行）時名「此世間」、果時名「彼世間」；由自士夫力所作，名「自然」；「通慧」指第六（漏盡通）；「已證」指由見道；「具足」指由修道；「顯示」是自所知、為他說；「我生已盡」等，如別處所說。略義是：顯示謗因、謗果、誹謗功用、謗真實事（「功用」指殖種、任持、來往、感生業四種功用）。又有略義差別：顯示誹謗因、果、流轉緣、流轉士夫，及誹謗其對治還滅。又：誹謗流轉的，是謗因、不謗（諸法）自相；謗還滅的，是謗其功德、不謗補特伽羅。

接著，善品（離十惡）的相，翻轉前面就知道，其中差別論再特說。翻「欲邪行」中的「諸梵行者」（這是總句）：由三種清淨而得清淨——一時分清淨、二他信清淨、三正行清淨。「盡壽行、久遠行」顯時分清淨；「諍處雪故名清、無違越故名淨」此二總顯他信清淨（這裡「清而非淨」可作四句：一實毀犯卻於諍得勝、二實不犯卻於諍墮負、三實不犯又於諍得勝、四實毀犯又於諍墮負）。「不以愛染身觸母邑（女人）」名「遠離生臭」；「不行兩兩交會鄙事」名「遠離婬欲」；「不以餘手觸等方便出不淨」名「非鄙愛」；「願受持梵行」名「遠離猥法」——這就名正行清淨具足。翻「妄語」中：「可信」是可委（託）；「可委」是可寄託；「應可建立」是於種種違諍事中可立為正證；「無有虛誑」是於委寄中不虛誑、不欺誷。略義是顯三種攝受：一欲解攝受、二保任攝受、三作用攝受。

（乙）業本身的相（法相）

什麼是殺生這個法？就是對其他眾生生起想要殺害的欲樂，生起染污心，因而對他發起殺害方便，以及在殺害究竟完成時所有的身業。什麼是不與取？就是對他人所攝的財物生起盜取欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起盜取方便，以及在盜取究竟完成時所有的身業。什麼是欲邪行？就是對不應行欲的對象或情況生起習近欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起欲邪行方便，以及在欲邪行究竟完成時所有的身業。什麼是妄語？就是對其他有情懷有覆藏真相之想而生起說妄語的欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起虛偽作證的方便，以及在妄語究竟完成時所有的語業。

什麼是離間語？就是對其他有情生起想要破壞和合的欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起破壞方便，以及在離間語究竟完成時所有的語業。什麼是麁惡語？就是對其他有情生起說麁惡語的欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起麁語方便，以及在麁惡語究竟完成時所有的語業。什麼是綺語？就是生起說綺語的欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起不相應語的方便，以及在綺語究竟完成時所有的語業。什麼是貪欲？就是對他人所有之物生起「使它歸我所有」的欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起決定方便，以及在貪欲究竟完成時所有的意業。什麼是瞋恚？就是對其他有情生起損害欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起決定損害的方便，以及在瞋恚究竟完成時所有的意業。什麼是邪見？就是生起誹謗因果等的欲樂，生起染污心，因而發起決定誹謗的方便，以及在邪見究竟完成時所有的意業。

什麼是離殺生？就是對殺生生起了知其過患的欲解，生起殊勝善心，因而發起使殺生止息的方便，以及在止息究竟完成時所有的身業。如同離殺生，離不與取乃至離邪見也都應如此了知；其差別是，對不與取乃至邪見各自生起過患欲解與殊勝善心，發起相應的止息方便，並在止息究竟時成為相應的身業、語業或意業。十種善與不善業道略攝為三種，就是身業、語業與意業；將這三種廣為分別，就建立為十種業道。

三、業的因

業的因，有十二種相：一貪、二瞋、三癡、四自（自己起意）、五他（他人教唆）、六隨他轉（隨人轉）、七所愛味（為貪愛滋味）、八怖畏、九為損害、十戲樂、十一法想（以為合法）、十二邪見。

四、業的位（業的輕重感哪一道）

業的位，略有五種相：耎位、中位、上位、生位、習氣位。由耎品的不善業，生於傍生之中；由中品的不善業，生於餓鬼之中；由上品的不善業，生於地獄之中。由耎品的善業，生於人中；由中品的善業，生於欲界天中；由上品的善業，生於色界或無色界。什麼是耎位不善業？就是以耎品的貪、瞋、癡為因緣的業。什麼是中位不善業？就是以中品的貪、瞋、癡為因緣的業。什麼是上位不善業？就是以上品的貪、瞋、癡為因緣的業。各種善業則隨其所應，以無貪、無瞋、無癡為因緣。什麼是生位業？就是已經生起、尚未滅去、現在現前的業。什麼是習氣位業？就是已經生起、也已滅去、現在不現前的業。

五、業的門（業怎麼給果·怎麼損益）

業門略有二種：與果門、損益門。

與果門有五種，應當了知：一、與異熟果；二、與等流果；三、與增上果；四、與現法果；五、與他增上果。

與異熟果：由於對殺生親近、修習又多多修習，便在地獄中承受異熟果；如殺生業道，其他各種不善業道也都如此，這稱為與異熟果。與等流果：若從那個惡趣出離，來生此間人類同分之中，便會壽命短促、資財匱乏、妻不貞良、多遭誹謗、親友乖離、聽聞違逆心意的聲音、說話沒有威信，又增長猛利的貪、增長猛利的瞋、增長猛利的癡，這稱為與等流果。與增上果：由親近、修習、多多修習各種不善業的增上力，所招感的外在環境光澤稀少，果實不充實、果實多有朽敗、多有變改、多有零落、不甘美、不恆常、不充足、不便利，乃至空無果實。應知善業所得的增上果與此相反。

與現法果，就是在現世承受果報。善業與不善業由兩種因緣而與現法果：第一，由欲解；第二，由所作之事。欲解又有八種：一、有顧欲解；二、無顧欲解；三、損惱欲解；四、慈悲欲解；五、憎害欲解；六、淨信欲解；七、棄恩欲解；八、知恩欲解。什麼是由有顧欲解造不善業而受現法果？有人以增上欲解顧戀自己的身體、顧戀財物、顧戀各種有，因而造作不善業。什麼是由無顧欲解造善業而受現法果？有人以增上欲解不顧自己的身體、不顧財物、不顧各種有，因而造作善業。什麼是由損惱欲解造不善業而受現法果？有人以增上品損惱欲解，對其他有情、補特伽羅造作不善業。什麼是由慈悲欲解造善業而受現法果？有人以增上品慈悲欲解，對其他有情、補特伽羅造作善業。

什麼是由憎害欲解造不善業而受現法果？有人以增上品憎害欲解，對佛、法、僧與任何尊重處事造作不善業。什麼是由淨信欲解造善業而受現法果？有人以增上品淨信欲解，對佛、法、僧等造作善業。什麼是由棄恩欲解造不善業而受現法果？有人以增上品背恩欲解、欺誑欲解、酷暴欲解，對父母及任何曾經施恩之處造作不善業。什麼是由知恩欲解造善業而受現法果？有人以增上品知恩欲解、報恩欲解，對父母等造作善業。

由所作之事而受現法果：不善業中的五無間業與其同分重業，也有在現法中受果的。五無間業是：一、害母；二、害父；三、害阿羅漢；四、破和合僧；五、對如來生起惡心而使佛身出血。無間業同分是：對阿羅漢尼及母親行穢染行；擊打最後有的菩薩；在天廟、街路、市集建立殺羊之法，使它流行不絕；對寄託於自己、極為委重的親友、同心者、耆舊等加以損害欺誑；對有苦、貧窮、困乏、無依無怙的人，先為他作歸依、施與無畏，後來反而加以傷害或逼惱；劫奪僧門；破壞靈廟。這些業稱為無間業同分。

善業因所作之事重大而受現法果，例如有人見母親沒有正信，便勸進、開化，使她安置建立在具信之中；如同使無信者具信，也使犯戒者具戒、慳吝者具捨、惡慧者具慧。對母親如此，對父親也如此。或者供養承事已入慈定的人；如對入慈定者，對入無諍定、入滅盡定、證預流果、證阿羅漢果的人供養承事也都如此。又親自在佛前供養承事；如對佛供養承事，對有學僧、無學僧也都如此。若在這些尊重事中反過來，由損害因緣生起不善業，也受現法果。

與他增上果：這也屬於由現法受果之業而令他人增上。例如如來所住的國邑，必定沒有疾疫、災橫等生起；由佛陀的神力，無量眾生沒有疾病、沒有疫癘、沒有災橫，獲得安樂而住。如佛世尊，轉輪聖王及住慈定的菩薩也都如此。又有菩薩以大悲心觀察一切貧窮困苦、被惡業之天所惱的眾生，施給飲食、財穀與庫藏，使他們全都充足；由此因緣，那些眾生得到安樂而住。這些種類，應知是由他者的增上所生、現法承受的業果。

損益門：對諸有情，依十不善業道，建立八種「損害門」：一損害眾生、二損害財物、三損害妻妾、四虛偽友證（作假見證）損害、五損害助伴、六顯說過失損害、七引發放逸損害、八引發怖畏損害。與此相反，依十善業道，建立八種「利益門」。

六、業的增上（什麼是最重的業）

什麼是業的增上？就是猛利、極重的業。應知這種業由六種相而成為增上：第一，加行；第二，串習；第三，自性；第四，事；第五，所治一類；第六，損害所治。由加行故：有人由極猛利的貪、瞋、癡纏，或由極猛利的無貪、無瞋、無癡加行，發起各種業。由串習故：有人在漫長時日中親近、修習乃至多多修習不善業或善業。由自性故：就業道自身的輕重而言，相對綺語，麁惡語是更大的重罪；相對麁惡語，離間語更重；相對離間語，妄語更重；相對欲邪行，不與取更重；相對不與取，殺生更重；相對貪欲，瞋恚更重；相對瞋恚，邪見更重。善業方面，相對施性業，戒性的無罪業更殊勝；相對戒性業，修性的無罪業更殊勝；相對聞性，思性的無罪業更殊勝，其餘類推。由事故：有人對佛、法、僧與任何尊重處事加以損害或利益，這稱為重事業。由所治一類故：有人一向受持而行各種不善業，乃至壽命窮盡都沒有片刻生起善業。由損害所治故：有人斷除所對治的各種不善業，使各種善業離欲而得清淨。

七、業的顛倒

業的顛倒有三種：作用顛倒、執受顛倒、憙樂顛倒。作用顛倒：有人本想殺害某一眾生，卻誤殺了另一眾生。應知其中雖然確有殺生，卻沒有原先所欲殺害對象的殺生罪；然而仍會生起屬於殺生種類、與殺生相似同分的罪。又有人沒有誤殺其他眾生，卻對非情物加以刀杖，然後自認「我已殺生」。應知其中實際沒有殺生，也沒有殺生罪；然而仍有屬於殺生種類、與殺生相似同分的罪生起。如殺生業道，對不與取等一切業道，也應隨其所應了知其作用顛倒。執受顛倒：有人生起邪見、建立邪論，宣稱「沒有施與、沒有愛養」乃至其餘一切邪見；他執著畢竟沒有能殺者與所殺者，對不與取乃至綺語也同樣認為沒有；又執著沒有施與、受齋、修福與受學尸羅，因此斷定沒有罪、也沒有福。又有人建立邪論：「若有眾生憎惡梵天、憎惡諸天、憎惡婆羅門，這種可憎惡者就只應殺害；由殺害他的因緣，只得福而沒有罪；對他作不與取乃至綺語，也只獲福德，沒有非福。」憙樂顛倒：有人在不善業道現前而行時，把它當作遊戲之法，極為歡喜。

八、業的差別

業有種種差別：有作業、有不作業；有增長業、有不增長業；有故思業、有不故思業；有定異熟業、不定異熟業；有異熟已熟業、異熟未熟業；善業、不善業、無記業；律儀所攝業、不律儀所攝業、非律儀非不律儀所攝業；施性業、戒性業、修性業；福業、非福業、不動業；順樂受業、順苦受業、順不苦不樂受業；順現法受業、順生受業、順後受業；過去業、未來業、現在業；欲繫業、色繫業、無色繫業；學業、無學業、非學非無學業；見所斷業、修所斷業、無斷業；黑黑異熟業、白白異熟業、黑白黑白異熟業、非黑非白無異熟能盡諸業；曲業、穢業、濁業、清淨業、寂靜業。逐一說——

作業：若思業，及思已所起的身業、語業。不作業：若不思業，及不思已不起的身語業。增長業：除掉十種業，其餘都是。哪十種（不增長）？一夢所作、二無知所作、三無故思所作、四不利不數所作、五狂亂所作、六失念所作、七非樂欲所作、八自性無記、九悔所損、十對治所損；除這十種，其餘名增長。不增長業：就是那十種。故思業：故意思量過後（所作、所增長的）。不故思業：非故意所作。順定受業：故思已、若作若增長的。順不定受業：故思已、作而不增長的。異熟已熟業：已與果的。異熟未熟業：未與果的。善業：以無貪無瞋無癡為因緣。不善業：以貪瞋癡為因緣。無記業：既非無貪等、也非貪等為因緣。律儀所攝業：或別解脫律儀、或靜慮等至（定）的果斷律儀、或無漏律儀所攝。不律儀所攝業：十二種不律儀類所攝——一屠羊、二販雞、三販豬、四捕鳥、五罝兔（張網捕兔）、六盜賊、七魁膾（劊子手）、八守獄、九讒刺（告密）、十斷獄（判死）、十一縛象、十二呪龍。非律儀非不律儀所攝業：除三種律儀業及不律儀類業，其餘一切善不善無記業。施性業：從因緣（無貪無瞋無癡）、等起（無貪等俱行、能捨所施物、能起身語業思）、依處（以所施物及受者為依處）、自性（思所起、能捨所施物的身語業）四面說（戒性業、修性業隨應類推：戒性業自性是律儀所攝身語業、依處是有情非有情數物；修性業因緣是三摩地因緣即無貪等、等起是引發定思、自性是三摩地、依處是十方無苦無樂等有情界）。福業：感善趣異熟、及順五趣受的善業。非福業：感惡趣異熟、及順五趣受的不善業。不動業：感色無色界異熟、及順色無色界受的善業。順樂受業：福業、及順三靜慮受的不動業。順苦受業：非福業。順不苦不樂受業：能感一切處阿賴耶識異熟的業，及第四靜慮以上的不動業。順現法受業：感現法果的。順生受業：感無間（下一）生果的。順後受業：感再後生果的。過去業：住習氣位、或已與果或未與果的。未來業：未生未滅的。現在業：已造、已思、未謝滅的。欲繫業：感欲界異熟、墮欲界的。色繫業：感色界異熟、墮色界的。無色繫業：感無色界異熟、墮無色界的。學業：異生或非異生的「有學」相續中所有善業。無學業：無學相續中所有善業。非學非無學業：除前二、其餘相續中的善不善無記業。見所斷業：受惡趣的不善等業。修所斷業：受善趣的善不善無記業。無斷業：世出世的諸無漏業。黑黑異熟業：非福業（黑業感黑（苦）異熟）。白白異熟業：不動業。黑白黑白異熟業：福業（這是約「還沒斷非福業時、有不善業作惡對」而立的）。非黑非白無異熟、能盡諸業者：出世間的諸無漏業（是前三業的斷對治）。曲業：諸外道的善不善業。穢業：曲業也名穢業；又有穢業，指本法（佛教）中的異生、在聖教裡顛倒見者、住自見取者、邪決定者、猶豫覺者所有的善不善業。濁業：曲業穢業也名濁業；又有濁業，指本法異生在聖教裡不決定者、猶豫覺者的善不善業。又有差別：唯外道法中才有此（曲穢濁）三業——由邪解行故名「曲」，由此為依、能障所起諸功德故名「穢」，能障通達真如故名「濁」。清淨業：本法異生在聖教中正決定者、不猶豫覺者所有的善業。寂靜業：住本法、非異生的一切聖者所有的學無學業。

九、業的過患

業的過患，略有七種。殺生者以殺生為因：一、能夠傷害自己；二、能夠傷害他人；三、能夠同時傷害自他；四、生起現法之罪；五、生起後法之罪；六、生起現法與後法二者之罪；七、承受由此所生的身心憂苦。能為自害：為了殺害眾生而發起方便，由此自己反被傷害，或被繫縛，或遭到退失，或被人訶責毀辱，卻沒能害到他人。能為他害：由自己發起的殺害方便損害他人，自己卻沒有被害。能為俱害：由此方便既害他人，自己又反被他人傷害，或被繫縛、遭退失乃至被訶毀。生現法罪：其情形如前述能為自害。生後法罪：其情形如前述能為他害。生現法後法罪：其情形如前述能為俱害。受彼所生身心憂苦：為殺害眾生而發起方便，卻沒有造成前六種過失，也沒有辦成自己想殺之事；因所欲之事不能和合成就，便承受身體與內心的憂苦。另有十種過患，是依犯尸羅、破壞戒行而說，其餘如經廣說。又有殺生等四種不善業道，再加上飲用各種酒為第五種；依違犯在家善男子學處，佛陀宣說有許多過患，詳如《闡地迦經》所說。

The second of the three defilements: "karma" (the karma produced by the afflictions). It is set out under nine items: intrinsic nature, distinction, cause, phase, gate, dominance, inversion, difference, and calamity.

Opening: The Nine Gates of the Defilement of Karma

What is called the defilement of karma? The heading states it: intrinsic nature, distinction, cause, phase, and gate, the dominant class, inversion, difference, and the several calamities. The defilement of karma is to be understood through these nine items.

One · The Intrinsic Nature of Karma

What is the intrinsic nature of karma? It is this: when a certain phenomenon arises, the mark of "doing" arises; and because of its arising, the doing of the body (bodily action) and the doing of speech (verbal action) go on to be done, one after another, and so turn — this is the intrinsic nature of karma. (Put simply: the moment the mind stirs to do, it draws out the actions of body and mouth; that is karma.)

Two · The Distinction of Karma (the Ten Wholesome and Unwholesome Courses of Action · Sūtra-Exegesis Phrase by Phrase)

The distinction of karma is to be seen from two sides: first from "the mark of the one who does the karma (the person, pudgala)," and second from "the karma itself (the mark of the phenomenon)." Both sides fall upon the wholesome and unwholesome "ten courses of action": killing / abstaining from killing, taking what is not given (theft) / abstaining from taking what is not given, sexual misconduct / abstaining from sexual misconduct, false speech / abstaining from false speech, divisive speech / abstaining from divisive speech, harsh speech / abstaining from harsh speech, frivolous speech / abstaining from frivolous speech, covetousness / abstaining from covetousness, ill will / abstaining from ill will, wrong view / abstaining from wrong view.

(a) The Mark of the One Who Does the Karma — Expounding the Sūtra Phrase by Phrase

The treatise cites the sūtra-text and unfolds the "one who does the karma" mark of each course of action, phrase by phrase:

The one who kills: "the one who kills" is the general phrase. "Utterly savage" — this is the murderous intent being fully present. "His hands smeared with blood" — this is the bodily mark altering for the sake of accomplishing the kill. "Harming, harming utterly, seizing" — this is severing another's life, dismembering his limbs, killing for the sake of a livelihood. "Without shame" — this is committing sin against oneself. "Without pity" — this is bringing upon the other the suffering of what is unwished. Again the sūtra says "toward all sentient beings": there was a renunciant of another path named "the Unbound" (Nirgrantha) who held that "only beings within a hundred yojanas have the distinction of restraint and non-restraint" (beyond that range it does not count); to counter him it says "toward all sentient beings" (not limited by range); and that other path further held that "trees and other outer things also have life," and to counter him it says "toward real sentient beings" (marking off what is not a real sentient being) — this displays the two sides, "the abstention (from killing) that counters for real merit" and "the abstention that counters for unreal merit." All these phrases display "premeditated killing" (killing with forethought). "Down even to the lowest — the gnat, the ant, and such sentient beings" — this phrase displays "indiscriminate killing" (killing without regard to great or small, killing even worms and ants). "If one has not yet abstained from the act of killing" — this phrase displays that release is still possible when the occasion comes: so long as one has not yet abstained, one is named "the one who kills." The condensed sense of these phrases is to display the appearance, the operation, and the causes and conditions of killing, and the differences in its acts and uses; it also displays killing as it really is, its differences, the being that is killed, and the naming of "the one who kills." Again, these phrases display "the mark of the person able to kill," not "the mark of the phenomenon of killing."

The one who takes what is not given (theft): "the one who takes what is not given" is the general phrase. "Belonging to another" — refers to the wealth, grain, and such subsumed under another. "Whether in a village" — refers to that property being amassed or transferred within a village. "Whether in a still and quiet place" — refers to that property arising, being amassed, or transferred in a still and quiet place. "This is precisely reckoned a thing that can be stolen" — refers to a thing not given, not relinquished, not abandoned. "If one appropriates it to oneself" — grasping it as one's own. "Taking what is not given" — when one's own goods and utensils fall short, one grasps it as one's own. "Delighting in what is not given" — delighting in doing the deed of theft. "Toward what is not given, not relinquished, not abandoned, one generates a longing" — plundering another's goods, wishing to make them one's own. (Here the distinction of "not given, not relinquished, not abandoned": what the owner has not first given to you as in repaying a debt is called "not given"; what the owner is unwilling to relinquish to the taker is called "not relinquished"; what the owner does not, in accord with a being's wish, cast away for its use is called "not abandoned.") "Taking for one's own sake" — this is taking what is not given, delighting in what is not given. "Taking greedily" — this is generating avid craving toward a thing not given, not relinquished, not abandoned. "Taking unfairly" — a thing contended over is outmatched by another, and one has not been able to clear oneself (win the contention). "Taking impurely" — though one outmatches the other, one is stained by the defilement of a fault. "Taking with fault" — able to summon the unwished fruit of the present life and of later lives. "If one has not yet abstained from taking what is not given" — as with killing above (not yet having abstained, one is named the one who takes what is not given). The remaining courses of action are all likewise. The condensed sense here is: by stealing this thing one becomes a taker of what is not given; in a given place, according to its differences, one plunders as it really is; by plundering one gains this fault — this is the general sense. Again, this too displays "the mark of the one who takes what is not given," not "the mark of the phenomenon of taking what is not given"; and the rest should all be understood in this way.

The one who commits sexual misconduct: "the one who commits sexual misconduct" is the general phrase. "Guarded by the father, mother, and the rest" — as when father and mother, for the sake of a future marriage, diligently guard their own maiden daughter, watching over her at all times, not letting her do a base and filthy thing with another; and if the father and mother are not present, she is then guarded by her nearest kin, brothers and sisters; if there are none, then by the remaining relatives; if there are none, she guards herself for fear of harming the family; or the parents-in-law guard her for the sake of their own son. "One under punitive authority" — refers to the king or the law-enforcer, who guards by the method of punishment. "One with an obstructor" — refers to the gatekeeper who guards. This briefly displays the three kinds of guarding of "the unmarried": one, guarded by the respected near kin and by herself; two, guarded by the king and the law-enforcer; three, guarded by the gatekeeper. "The wife or concubine of another" — one already married to another. "One subsumed under another" — not yet married, but guarded by the three kinds of guarding. "Whether by trickery" — practicing misconduct by deceitful means. "Whether by force" — openly coercing the parents and the rest. "Whether by stealth" — not to the face, but secretly wooing in mutual desire. "And so does the deed of desire" — the coupling of two together. "And in this very matter, with a mind of desire contrary to principle, one practices misconduct" — the offense committed upon one's own wife or concubine in a wrong way, a wrong place, a wrong time. The condensed sense is: it briefly displays what is practiced, the differences of the practice, and sexual misconduct.

The one who speaks falsely: "the one who speaks falsely" is the general phrase. "Whether the king" — refers to the royal house. "Whether his agent" — refers to the law-enforcer. "Whether an individual" — refers to an elder or a householder. "Whether an assembly" — refers to that gathering. "Whether in a great congregation" — refers to a place where the multitudes of the four quarters are gathered. "Whether already known" — the speech that follows upon what the first three (king, agent, individual) have gone through. "Whether already seen" — the speech that follows upon what one has once seen and gone through. "Whether from a cause in oneself" — whether from fear or from attachment (as it is from a cause in oneself, so also from a cause in another): from fear, is the fear of being killed, bound, punished, denounced, and the like; from attachment, is for the sake of wealth, grain, treasure, and such. "Knowing, one speaks falsely" — plainly concealing the thought, the wish, the view (the truth), and so speaking. The condensed sense is: from the ground, the divergent telling, the causes and conditions, and the corrupting of thought, one speaks falsely.

The one who speaks divisively: "the one who speaks divisively" is the general phrase. "For the sake of breaking apart" — from the intent of breaking apart (the concord of others). "Having heard that one's words, he reports them to this one; having heard this one's words, he reports them to that one" — following what is heard, he tells words that accord with estrangement. "Breaking apart the concord" — able to give rise to "delighting in separation." "Setting his seal on the separation" — able to violate and make "the delight (in separation) arise further." "Rejoicing to wreck the concord" — his mind defiled toward the already-arisen delight in separation. "Delighting to set his seal on the separation" — his mind defiled toward the delight, arisen further, in the violating. "And so speaks the words that can divide" — whether the other does not hear, or he uses some other expedient. The condensed sense is: it briefly displays the intent to divide, the expedient of dividing before the concord is wrecked, the expedient of dividing after the concord is wrecked, the defiled mind of dividing, and the other expedients.

The one who speaks harshly: "the one who speaks harshly" is the general phrase. (This passage first displays, by contrast, the several fair names of "good speech" — ) subsumed under the branch of śīla (moral discipline), it is named "speech without agitation"; its words and phrases beautiful and smooth, it is named "pleasing to the ear"; aroused by a heightened resolve, neither feigned nor flattering, it is named "answering to the heart"; not inflating (not exaggerating), suited to the occasion, drawing out meaning and benefit, it is named "lovable"; heading toward the palace of nirvāṇa, it is named "the foremost"; its words and phrases worth savoring, it is named "exquisite"; skillful in explaining its words and phrases, it is named "distinct"; its heading manifestly evident, it is named "easily understood"; embracing the true Dharma, it is named "worth the labor bestowed"; aroused by a mind free of the taste of craving, it is named "without dependence"; not exceeding due measure, it is named "not to be loathed"; continuous and vast, it is named "boundless and inexhaustible." Again, from "speech without agitation" to "boundless and inexhaustible speech," they are briefly gathered into three kinds of speech: one, speech subsumed under the restraint of śīla (one kind); two, speech of even gladness (three kinds); three, Dharma-teaching speech (the rest). This last (Dharma-teaching speech) is further divided into three: one, speech complete in its heading (the first one); two, speech complete in wording (the next two); three, speech complete in expedient means (the rest). Again: lovable with regard to the future world, it is named "lovable speech"; delightful with regard to the past world, it is named "delightful speech"; welcome and pleasing with regard to the matters and experiences of the present world, it is named "welcome speech, pleasing speech" — this is precisely "speech of even gladness," named "speech lovable, delightful, welcome, and pleasing to measureless beings"; Dharma-teaching speech is named "speech of one in meditative equipoise (samāhita)"; speech subsumed under the branch of śīla is named "speech that, by non-remorse and the rest, can gradually draw forth concentration (samādhi)." (Returning to the contrary side:) "venom-stinging speech" — words of slandering another, letting loose the venom of anger; "coarse and fierce speech" — words of harassing another, issuing a bitter touch; the rest of harsh speech is known by turning over the white category (good speech) above.

The one who speaks frivolously: "the one who speaks frivolously" is the general phrase. In "wrongly raising a charge" (improperly exposing another's offense), there are five kinds: speaking at a wrong time is named "untimely speech"; speaking what is not true is named "untrue speech"; speaking what draws out what is without meaning is named "meaningless speech"; speaking coarsely and fiercely is named "unlawful speech"; speech carrying ill will is named "unquiet speech." Again, in "wrongly teaching the Dharma": proclaiming without right pondering and examination is named "unconsidered speech"; speaking so as to outmatch the hearer is named "unquiet speech"; speaking at a wrong time, its meaning fore and aft unconnected, is named "confused and disordered speech"; speaking from a cause not in accord with principle is named "speech without teaching"; drawing an unfitting thing for a simile is named "speech without a simile"; displaying the filthy and defiled is named "speech without Dharma." Again, in singing, laughing, sporting, and play, watching dance, music, mirth, mime-talk, and the like, there is speech that draws out what is without meaning. The condensed sense is: it displays the frivolous speech of the three occasions stated before (wrongly raising a charge, wrongly teaching the Dharma, sporting play).

The one who covets: "the one who covets" is the general phrase. "By fierce and sharp greed" — toward what belongs to another, by the dominance of greed, one wishes to make it one's own and generates a decisive grasping. "Toward wealth" — the worldly class of wealth. "Utensils" — the goods and utensils to be used (wealth and utensils together are named "things"). "All that he has shall surely belong to me" — this displays the very aspect in which covetousness arises. The condensed sense is: it displays the intrinsic nature, the object, and the aspect of covetousness.

The one with a mind of ill will: "the one with a mind of ill will" is the general phrase. "Malicious discrimination" — toward another sentient being, by the dominant force of ill will, one wishes to do harm and generates a decisive grasping. "Let him be slain" — wishing to injure his body. "Let him be harmed" — wishing to hurt and vex his body. "Let him be brought to loss" — wishing to make his wealth and goods dwindle. "Let him himself gain sundry griefs and vexations" — wishing to make him lose his wealth and goods by himself. The condensed sense is as before.

The one with wrong view: "the one with wrong view" is the general phrase. "One raises up such a view" — displays what one's own mind accepts and gladly wishes to state. "One sets up such a doctrine" — displays what one imparts to others and will state. "There is no giving, no cherishing, no offering" — by three kinds of intent one denies giving: one, the intent regarding goods; two, the intent regarding purity; three, the intent regarding sacrifice to the gods (offering to the fire-god is named "offering"). Again, it displays the denial of "the wholesomeness born of discipline and cultivation, able to counter what is to be countered," and the denial of "the wholesomeness born of giving, able to counter what is to be countered," and so it says "there is no good conduct, no bad conduct." Again, it displays the denial of "the fruit gained by these three kinds of wholesomeness that counter what is to be countered," and so it says "there is no fruit or maturation of the two karmas of good and bad conduct." Again, it displays the denial of "the ground and condition of transmigration," and so it says "there is no this world, no other world." Again, it displays the denial of "the entrusting-condition and seed-condition of transmigration," and so it says "there is no mother, no father." Again, it displays the denial of "the true person (the one reborn) in transmigration," and so it says "there are no beings born by transformation." Again, it displays the denial of "the counter-to and cessation-of transmigration," and so it says "in the world there is no true arhat," and so on at length. (The sūtra then states the positive marks of the arhat:) having headed toward the quieting of each particular affliction, he is named "rightly arrived"; toward sentient beings, having abandoned wrong conduct and practicing conduct without inversion, he is named "rightly conducting"; at the time of the cause (of practice) it is named "this world," at the time of the fruit it is named "that world"; what is done by one's own person-power is named "spontaneous"; "the higher penetration" refers to the sixth (the penetration of the destruction of the outflows); "already realized" refers to what is by the path of seeing; "complete" refers to what is by the path of cultivation; "he displays it" — what is known by himself, he states for others; "my births are already exhausted" and the rest, as stated elsewhere. The condensed sense is: it displays the denial of the cause, the denial of the fruit, the denial of function, and the denial of the real matter ("function" refers to the four functions of planting the seed, sustaining, coming and going, and the karma that summons rebirth). Again there is a difference in the condensed sense: it displays the denial of the cause, the fruit, the condition of transmigration, and the person in transmigration, and the denial of their counter-to and cessation-of. Again: to deny transmigration is to deny the cause, not to deny the (phenomena's) own mark; to deny cessation is to deny its merit, not to deny the person.

Next, the marks of the wholesome category (abstaining from the ten evils) are known by turning over the foregoing, and among them the Treatise on Differences states further particulars. Turning over the "sexual misconduct," it treats "the practitioners of the pure life" (this is the general phrase): by three kinds of purity one attains purity — one, purity of the time-portion; two, purity of another's trust; three, purity of right conduct. "Practicing for the whole of life, practicing for the long term" displays purity of the time-portion; "because in a place of contention he clears himself, he is named 'clean'; because there is no transgression, he is named 'pure'" — these two together display purity of another's trust (here "clean but not pure" can be made into four propositions: one, really transgressing yet winning the contention; two, really not transgressing yet losing the contention; three, really not transgressing and also winning the contention; four, really transgressing and also losing the contention). "He does not touch a woman with a mind of craving-defilement" is named "abstaining from the born stench"; "he does not do the base deed of coupling two together" is named "abstaining from lust"; "he does not, by hand or other expedient, emit the impure" is named "not basely craving"; "he vows to uphold the pure life" is named "abstaining from the vulgar dharma" — this is named being complete in the purity of right conduct. Turning over the "false speech": "trustworthy" is one who can be entrusted; "entrustable" is one who can be committed to; "fit to be set up" is one who, in various matters of contention and dispute, can be set up as a right witness; "without falsity or deceit" is one who, in what is entrusted and committed, is neither false nor deceitful and does not cheat. The condensed sense is that it displays three kinds of embracing: one, embracing by resolve; two, embracing by keeping faith; three, embracing by function.

(b) The Mark of the Karma Itself (the Mark of the Phenomenon)

What is killing (the phenomenon)? It is this: toward another being one generates the wish to kill and generates a defiled mind, and thereupon toward him one generates the expedient of killing, and there is the bodily action present in the culmination (completion) of the killing. What is taking what is not given? Toward a thing subsumed under another one generates the wish to steal, generates a defiled mind, generates the expedient of stealing, and the bodily action in the culmination of the stealing. What is sexual misconduct? Toward what ought not to be practiced (a wrong way, wrong place, wrong time) one generates the wish to consort, generates a defiled mind, generates the expedient, and the bodily action in the culmination. What is false speech? Toward another sentient being one generates the wish to speak with a concealing thought, generates a defiled mind, generates the expedient of false witness, and the verbal action in the culmination. What is divisive speech? Toward another sentient being one generates the wish to break apart, a defiled mind, generates the expedient of breaking apart, and the verbal action in the culmination. What is harsh speech? Toward another sentient being one generates the wish for harsh speech, a defiled mind, generates the expedient of harsh speech, and the verbal action in the culmination. What is frivolous speech? One generates the wish for frivolous speech, a defiled mind, generates the expedient of unconnected speech, and the verbal action in the culmination. What is covetousness? Toward what belongs to another one generates the wish to "make it one's own," a defiled mind, generates the decisive expedient, and the mental action in the culmination. What is ill will? Toward another one generates the wish to harm, a defiled mind, generates the decisive expedient, and the mental action in the culmination. What is wrong view? One generates the wish to deny, a defiled mind, generates the decisive expedient, and the mental action in the culmination. What is abstaining from killing? Toward killing one generates the resolve regarding its "calamity," generates an excellent wholesome mind, and thereupon toward it one generates the expedient of stilling, and there is the bodily action in the culmination of the stilling. As with abstaining from killing, so also abstaining from taking what is not given down to abstaining from wrong view (the difference being: toward taking what is not given down to wrong view one generates in each case the resolve regarding its calamity, generates an excellent wholesome mind, generates the expedient of stilling, and the bodily action or mental action in the culmination). These ten are briefly gathered into three: bodily action, verbal action, mental action; and these three, spread out, are precisely the ten.

Three · The Cause of Karma

The cause of karma has twelve aspects: one, greed; two, ill will; three, delusion; four, oneself (one's own arousing of intent); five, another (another's incitement); six, following after another (turning as another turns); seven, the object of relished taste (for the sake of the relished taste of craving); eight, fear; nine, for the sake of doing harm; ten, sporting delight; eleven, the notion of Dharma (taking it to be lawful); twelve, wrong view.

Four · The Phase of Karma (Which Realm the Weight of Karma Summons)

The phase of karma has, in brief, five aspects: the soft phase, the middling phase, the upper phase, the arisen phase, and the latent-tendency phase. By "soft-class" (weak) unwholesome karma one is born among the animals; by "middling-class" unwholesome karma, among the hungry ghosts; by "upper-class" unwholesome karma, in the hells; by "soft-class" wholesome karma, among humans; by "middling-class" wholesome karma, among the gods of the desire realm; by "upper-class" wholesome karma, in the form and formless realms. What is soft-phase unwholesome karma? It has soft-class greed, ill will, and delusion for its cause and condition. Middling-phase and upper-phase unwholesome karma have middling-class and upper-class greed, ill will, and delusion for their cause and condition. Wholesome karma, according to what is fitting, has non-greed, non-ill-will, and non-delusion for its cause and condition. What is arisen-phase karma? Karma already arisen, not yet ceased, present before one. What is latent-tendency-phase karma? Karma already arisen, already ceased, not present before one.

Five · The Gate of Karma (How Karma Gives Fruit · How It Harms or Benefits)

The gate of karma has, in brief, two kinds: the gate of giving fruit and the gate of harm-and-benefit.

The gate of giving fruit has five kinds: one, giving the maturational fruit; two, giving the outflow fruit; three, giving the dominant fruit; four, giving the present-life fruit; five, giving the fruit that dominates another. Giving the maturational fruit: drawing near to, cultivating, and cultivating much the act of killing, one receives the maturational fruit in the hells (and so likewise for the other unwholesome courses of action). Giving the outflow fruit: if one comes out from there (the evil destinies) and is born among humans, one will be short of life, poor in wealth, have a wife who is not chaste, meet with much slander, be estranged from kin and friends, hear sounds contrary to one's wishes, have no authority in one's speech, and have increased fierce and sharp greed, ill will, and delusion — this is the giving of the outflow fruit. Giving the dominant fruit: by the dominant force of drawing near to and cultivating the several unwholesome karmas, the outer environment that is summoned has scant luster, unripe fruits, much rot, much alteration, much falling, no sweetness, no constancy, no sufficiency, no convenience, and is empty and without fruit (wholesome karma is the reverse). Giving the present-life fruit (receiving retribution in the present life): by two causes and conditions — one, by resolve; two, by the matter. "By resolve" has eight kinds: resolve with regard (with clinging), resolve without regard, resolve of injuring-and-vexing, resolve of loving-kindness and compassion, resolve of hatred-and-harm, resolve of pure faith, resolve of casting off kindness, resolve of knowing kindness. (Those who do evil and receive the present-life fruit:) by the dominant "with regard" resolve, clinging to body, wealth, and the several existents, one does unwholesome karma; by the dominant "injuring-and-vexing" resolve, toward another sentient being one does unwholesome karma; by the dominant "hatred-and-harm" resolve, toward the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha and the objects of reverence one does unwholesome karma; by the dominant "casting off kindness (turning one's back on kindness, cheating, cruel violence)" resolve, toward one's father and mother and the objects that have done one kindness one does unwholesome karma. (Those who do good and receive the present-life fruit:) by the dominant "without regard" resolve, not clinging to body, wealth, and the several existents, one does wholesome karma; by the dominant "loving-kindness and compassion" resolve, toward another sentient being one does wholesome karma; by the dominant "pure faith" resolve, toward the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha one does wholesome karma; by the dominant "knowing kindness, repaying kindness" resolve, toward one's father and mother and the rest one does wholesome karma. "By the matter": unwholesome karma among the "five deeds of immediate retribution" and their like-portion also has the receiving of the present-life fruit. The five deeds of immediate retribution: one, killing one's mother; two, killing one's father; three, killing an arhat; four, splitting the Saṅgha; five, arousing an evil mind toward a Tathāgata so as to draw blood. The like-portion of the deeds of immediate retribution (grave karma close to the five immediates): doing a filthy and defiled deed with a woman-arhat or with one's mother, striking a bodhisattva in his last body; or in a heaven-temple, on a street, or in a market setting up the rule of slaughtering sheep and letting it spread without cease; or toward a most-entrusted kinsman, a like-minded elder, doing harm and cheating; or toward one who has suffering, who is poor, who has no refuge and no protector, after having become his refuge and having bestowed on him fearlessness, turning to inflict harm and oppression on him; or plundering the gate of the Saṅgha; or wrecking a sacred shrine — these are named the like-portion of the immediates. Wholesome karma that, by the weight of the matter, receives the present-life fruit: such as urging a mother without right faith to be established in right faith (making one without right faith come to have faith, one who breaks the precepts come to have the precepts, one who is stingy come to have generosity, one of evil wisdom come to have wisdom — thus for the mother, and thus also for the father); or toward one who has entered the concentration of loving-kindness, making offering and rendering service (thus for one who has entered the concentration of loving-kindness, and thus also for one who has entered the concentration of non-contention, the attainment of cessation, or who has gained the fruit of stream-entry or the fruit of the arhat); and again, personally toward the Buddha making offering and rendering service (thus toward the Buddha, and thus also toward the Saṅgha of the learners and the beyond-learning); if, in these matters of reverence, one turns them about (by the cause and condition of harm) and does unwholesome karma, this too receives the present-life fruit. Giving the fruit that dominates another: this too is by karma that receives the present-life fruit — such as the country and town where a Tathāgata dwells being certainly without epidemic or calamity, because by the Buddha's divine power measureless beings are without sickness, without epidemic, without calamity, and gain a peaceful and happy abiding (as with the Buddha, so also with a wheel-turning sage-king and a bodhisattva abiding in the concentration of loving-kindness); the bodhisattva, with a mind of great compassion, contemplating all beings who are poor and in hardship, harassed by the evil-karma-gods, bestows on them food, drink, wealth, grain, and stores so as to make them sufficient, whereby those beings gain a peaceful and happy abiding — this class is "present-life-receiving karma born of dominating another."

The gate of harm-and-benefit: toward the several sentient beings, in dependence on the ten unwholesome courses of action, eight kinds of "gate of harm" are set up: one, harming beings; two, harming wealth and goods; three, harming wife and concubine; four, harm by false friend-witness (giving false testimony); five, harming a helper; six, harm by openly stating faults; seven, harm by inducing heedlessness; eight, harm by inducing fear. The reverse of these, in dependence on the ten wholesome courses of action, sets up eight kinds of "gate of benefit."

Six · The Dominance of Karma (What Is the Gravest Karma)

The dominance of karma is fierce, sharp, and utterly grave karma, by six aspects: one, application (aroused by the utterly fierce and sharp enwrapment of greed, ill will, and delusion, or by the utterly fierce and sharp application of non-greed, non-ill-will, and non-delusion); two, habituation (drawing near and cultivating through the long night); three, intrinsic nature (the gravity or lightness of the course of action itself: compared with frivolous speech, harsh speech is graver; compared with harsh speech, divisive speech is graver; compared with divisive speech, false speech is graver; compared with sexual misconduct, taking what is not given is graver; compared with taking what is not given, killing is graver; compared with covetousness, ill will is graver; compared with ill will, wrong view is graver — on the wholesome side: the nature of giving does not match the fault-free superiority of the nature of discipline; the nature of discipline does not match the superiority of the nature of cultivation; the nature of hearing does not match the superiority of the nature of reflection, and so on); four, the matter (doing harm or benefit toward the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha and the objects of reverence is named grave-matter karma); five, one class of what is to be countered (undertaking to practice unwholesome karma one-sidedly, without a single moment of wholesomeness up to death); six, the harm to what is to be countered (severing the unwholesome karma to be countered, and making wholesome karma free of desire and pure).

Seven · The Inversion of Karma

The inversion of karma has three kinds: the inversion of function, the inversion of appropriation, and the inversion of glad delight. The inversion of function: wishing to kill A, one kills B by mistake — here, though there is killing, there is no "sin of killing" (no sin of killing A); yet there arises the sin of "the class of killing, the like-portion resembling killing"; again, if one has not killed some other being by mistake but has laid blade or staff upon what has no life (a lifeless thing), fancying "I have killed a being" — here there is in fact no killing and no sin of killing; yet there arises the sin of the like-portion resembling killing (as with killing, so too the inversion of function for all the courses of action such as taking what is not given, understood likewise). The inversion of appropriation: raising up a wrong view, setting up a wrong doctrine of "no giving, no cherishing" down to every wrong view, grasping that "ultimately there is no one able to kill and nothing killed, no giving-and-receiving, no keeping of fasts, cultivating of merit, or upholding of precepts, and therefore no sin and no merit"; and again, someone raising up a wrong doctrine that "if there is a being who hates Brahmā, hates the gods, hates the brahmins, then such a one who ought to be hated ought to be killed, and to kill him is merit alone and no sin, and toward him to steal down to speak frivolously is likewise to gain merit alone and no demerit." The inversion of glad delight: while the unwholesome course of action is present and being done, being utterly glad, as if playing a game.

Eight · The Difference of Karma

Karma has all sorts of differences: there is karma done and karma not done; there is karma that increases and karma that does not increase; there is karma of deliberate intent and karma not of deliberate intent; there is karma of determinate maturation and karma of indeterminate maturation; there is karma whose maturation is already matured and karma whose maturation is not yet matured; wholesome karma, unwholesome karma, indeterminate karma; karma subsumed under restraint, karma subsumed under non-restraint, karma subsumed under neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint; karma of the nature of giving, karma of the nature of discipline, karma of the nature of cultivation; meritorious karma, non-meritorious karma, imperturbable karma; karma conducive to pleasant feeling, karma conducive to painful feeling, karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; karma to be received in the present life, karma to be received in the [next] birth, karma to be received later; past karma, future karma, present karma; karma bound to the desire realm, karma bound to the form realm, karma bound to the formless realm; karma of the learner, karma of the beyond-learning, karma of the neither-learner-nor-beyond-learning; karma to be severed by the path of seeing, karma to be severed by the path of cultivation, karma not to be severed; black karma with black maturation, white karma with white maturation, black-and-white karma with black-and-white maturation, karma that is neither black nor white, without maturation, and able to exhaust the several karmas; crooked karma, defiled karma, turbid karma, pure karma, quiescent karma. Item by item —

Karma done: karma that is volition, and the bodily and verbal karma aroused after volition. Karma not done: karma that is not volition, and the bodily and verbal karma that, not volition, is not aroused. Karma that increases: all but ten kinds of karma. Which ten (that do not increase)? One, done in a dream; two, done in not-knowing (ajñāna); three, done without deliberate intent; four, done without sharpness or repetition; five, done in madness and derangement; six, done in loss of mindfulness; seven, done without wish and desire; eight, indeterminate by intrinsic nature; nine, damaged by remorse; ten, damaged by a counter — apart from these ten, the rest is named increasing. Karma that does not increase: precisely those ten. Karma of deliberate intent: what is (done and increased) after deliberate pondering. Karma not of deliberate intent: what is done not by deliberate intent. Karma of determinate reception: what is done or increased after deliberate intent. Karma of indeterminate reception: what is done but not increased after deliberate intent. Karma whose maturation is already matured: what has already given fruit. Karma whose maturation is not yet matured: what has not yet given fruit. Wholesome karma: it has non-greed, non-ill-will, and non-delusion for its cause and condition. Unwholesome karma: it has greed, ill will, and delusion for its cause and condition. Indeterminate karma: it has neither non-greed and the rest, nor greed and the rest, for its cause and condition. Karma subsumed under restraint: subsumed under either the restraint of individual liberation, or the restraint that is the fruit-severance of meditative absorption and equipoise (concentration), or the uncontaminated restraint. Karma subsumed under non-restraint: subsumed under the twelve classes of non-restraint — one, slaughtering sheep; two, dealing in fowl; three, dealing in swine; four, catching birds; five, snaring hares (spreading nets to catch hares); six, robbery; seven, the executioner; eight, jailing; nine, informing (denunciation); ten, passing the death sentence; eleven, binding elephants; twelve, charming dragons. Karma subsumed under neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint: apart from the three kinds of restraint-karma and the karma of the non-restraint classes, all the rest of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate karma. Karma of the nature of giving: stated from four sides — cause-and-condition (non-greed, non-ill-will, non-delusion), co-arising (accompanied by non-greed and the rest, able to relinquish the thing given, able to arouse the volition of bodily and verbal karma), ground (the thing given and the receiver as its ground), and intrinsic nature (the bodily and verbal karma aroused by volition, able to relinquish the thing given) (karma of the nature of discipline and karma of the nature of cultivation are to be inferred accordingly as fitting: the intrinsic nature of karma of the nature of discipline is the bodily and verbal karma subsumed under restraint, its ground being sentient and non-sentient things; for karma of the nature of cultivation, its cause-and-condition is the cause-and-condition of concentration, namely non-greed and the rest, its co-arising is the drawing-forth of the volition of concentration, its intrinsic nature is concentration, its ground is the realms of beings in the ten directions without suffering or pleasure and the rest). Meritorious karma: wholesome karma that summons the maturation of the good destinies and is conducive to reception in the five destinies. Non-meritorious karma: unwholesome karma that summons the maturation of the evil destinies and is conducive to reception in the five destinies. Imperturbable karma: wholesome karma that summons the maturation of the form and formless realms and is conducive to reception in the form and formless realms. Karma conducive to pleasant feeling: meritorious karma, and the imperturbable karma conducive to reception in the three meditative absorptions. Karma conducive to painful feeling: non-meritorious karma. Karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling: karma able to summon the maturation of the store consciousness in all places, and the imperturbable karma above the fourth meditative absorption. Karma to be received in the present life: what summons the present-life fruit. Karma to be received in the [next] birth: what summons the fruit of the immediately-following (next) birth. Karma to be received later: what summons the fruit of a still-later birth. Past karma: what abides in the latent-tendency phase, whether it has already given fruit or not yet given fruit. Future karma: what has not yet arisen and not yet ceased. Present karma: what has already been done, already been thought, and has not yet passed and ceased. Karma bound to the desire realm: what summons the maturation of the desire realm and falls within the desire realm. Karma bound to the form realm: what summons the maturation of the form realm and falls within the form realm. Karma bound to the formless realm: what summons the maturation of the formless realm and falls within the formless realm. Karma of the learner: all the wholesome karma in the continuum of a "learner," whether an ordinary being or not an ordinary being. Karma of the beyond-learning: all the wholesome karma in the continuum of one beyond learning. Karma of the neither-learner-nor-beyond-learning: apart from the former two, the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate karma in the remaining continua. Karma to be severed by the path of seeing: the unwholesome and like karma that receives the evil destinies. Karma to be severed by the path of cultivation: the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate karma that receives the good destinies. Karma not to be severed: the several uncontaminated, worldly and world-transcending karmas. Black karma with black maturation: non-meritorious karma (black karma summons black (painful) maturation). White karma with white maturation: imperturbable karma. Black-and-white karma with black-and-white maturation: meritorious karma (this is set up on the basis of "when non-meritorious karma has not yet been severed, there being unwholesome karma standing as an evil counter"). Karma that is neither black nor white, without maturation, and able to exhaust the several karmas: the several world-transcending uncontaminated karmas (they are the counter that severs the former three karmas). Crooked karma: the wholesome and unwholesome karma of the several non-Buddhist paths. Defiled karma: crooked karma is also named defiled karma; and again there is defiled karma, referring to the wholesome and unwholesome karma held by ordinary beings within this Dharma (Buddhism) — those of inverted view within the holy teaching, those abiding in the grasping of their own view, those of wrong determination, and those of hesitant awareness. Turbid karma: crooked karma and defiled karma are also named turbid karma; and again there is turbid karma, referring to the wholesome and unwholesome karma of ordinary beings within this Dharma who are undetermined within the holy teaching and of hesitant awareness. There is a further difference: only within the non-Buddhist path are there these three karmas (crooked, defiled, turbid) — by wrong understanding and conduct it is named "crooked"; because it is the ground on which one can obstruct the several merits aroused, it is named "defiled"; because it can obstruct the penetration of suchness, it is named "turbid." Pure karma: the wholesome karma held by ordinary beings within this Dharma who are rightly determined within the holy teaching and of unhesitant awareness. Quiescent karma: all the karma of the learner and the beyond-learning held by all the sages who abide in this Dharma and are not ordinary beings.

Nine · The Calamity of Karma

The calamity of karma has, in brief, seven kinds: the one who kills, with killing for its cause, can work harm to himself, can work harm to another, can work harm to both, gives rise to present-life sin, gives rise to later-life sin, gives rise to present-and-later-life sin, and receives the grief and suffering of body and mind born of these. Can work harm to himself: arousing the expedient for working harm, whereby he himself is instead harmed, or is bound, or meets with decline and loss, or is denounced (yet has failed to harm the other). Can work harm to another: the expedient thereby aroused can harm another (while he himself is not harmed). Can work harm to both: by this expedient he harms another and is in turn harmed by the other (bound down to denounced). Gives rise to present-life sin: as with "can work harm to himself." Gives rise to later-life sin: as with "can work harm to another." Gives rise to present-and-later-life sin: as with "can work harm to both." Receives the grief and suffering of body and mind born of these: arousing the expedient for working harm, yet having failed to accomplish it (the former six faults), and being also unable to accomplish the killing he wished, by the cause and condition of what he wished not coming about (not being fulfilled), he then receives grief and suffering of body and mind. Again there are ten kinds of calamity, stated in dependence on "transgressing śīla (breaking the precepts)" (as the sūtra states at length). Again there are four unwholesome courses of action, with "drinking the several liquors" added as a fifth, in dependence on "the training-precepts of the faithful layman (the householder) who has transgressed," for which the Buddha states many calamities (stated at length as in the Caṇḍikā-sūtra).

有尋有伺等三地 · 雜染施設 · 生雜染The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied and Sustained Thought · The Designation of Defilement · The Defilement of Birth

全文五層 →Full five layers →

白話Vernacular

三雜染的第三重「生」（業所招的生死苦）。分四相：差別、艱辛、不定、流轉。最後「流轉」就是十二緣起的全幅展開——這是有尋有伺三地的義理最高峰，也是全論修證的根。

開頭：生雜染四相

什麼叫生雜染？要從四方面知道：一由差別、二由艱辛、三由不定、四由流轉。

一、生的差別（生有多少種）

生的差別有五種：界差別、趣差別、處所差別、勝生差別、自身世間差別。界差別：欲界與色、無色界的生的不同。趣差別：五趣、四生的不同。處所差別：欲界中有三十六處的生、色界中有十八處、無色界中有四處——這樣總共有五十八種生。勝生差別（生得好不好）：欲界人中有三種勝生——一「黑勝生」（生在旃荼羅家、卜羯娑家、造車家、竹作家、或其餘下賤貧窮缺財物飲食的家，名人中薄福德者）、二「白勝生」（生在剎帝利、婆羅門、長者的大富貴家，或其餘豪貴大富多財穀庫藏的家，名人中勝福德者）、三「非黑非白勝生」（不是前二種、生在中等之家）。欲界天中也有三種勝生：一非天（阿修羅）生、二依地分（住地面）生、三依虛空宮殿生。色界中有三種勝生：一異生（凡夫）無想天生、二有想天生、三淨居天生。無色界中有三種勝生：一無量想（識無邊處）天生、二無所有想天生、三非想非非想天生。自身世間差別：十方無量世界中，有無量有情、無量生的差別。

二、生的艱辛（輪迴受苦之多）

生的艱辛，如薄伽梵說：你們長時間在生死裡奔馳，流的身血超過四大海的水。為什麼？因為你們在漫漫長夜裡，常生為象、馬、駱駝、驢、牛、羊、雞、鹿等，在那裡多被砍斷身體支節，流的血極多；畜生道這樣，人道也一樣。又：你們長夜裡喪失了無量的父母兄弟姊妹親屬、又喪失種種財寶資具，流的眼淚也像血那麼多；血、淚這樣，所喝過的母乳也一樣多。這類生的艱辛之苦，無量無邊。

三、生的不定（輪迴關係之無常）

生的不定，如薄伽梵說：假使把大地所有草木的根莖枝葉都截成四指長的小籌，用來計算你們長夜輾轉所經過的父母——「這眾生曾做我母，我也曾做他母；這眾生曾做我父，我也曾做他父」——這樣算下去，四指的籌很快算完，可我還說不盡你們長夜所經父母的數量邊際。又說：你們有情自己觀察，長夜輾轉、受第一極重的憂苦，到現在還沒了結；要知道，我也曾受過這樣的大苦（苦如此，樂也一樣）。又說：我看這大地，沒有一小塊地方，是你們長夜不曾在那裡受過無量生死的。又說：我看世間有情，很難找到一個、長夜流轉中不曾做過你們的母、父、兄弟、姊妹、軌範師、親教師、或其餘尊長的。又說：若一個人在一劫中所受的身骨，假使有人替他堆積、不讓爛壞，那一堆的高度，會高過王舍城旁的廣博脇山。

四、生的流轉（十二緣起）

什麼是生的流轉？就是「自身所有的緣起」——這就叫流轉。

什麼是緣起？

緣起的綱目：體、門、義、差別、次第、難（疑問）、釋詞，緣性、分別緣，最後是攝諸經。

（一）緣起的體（三際·流轉與還滅）

略說，由三種相建立緣起：從前際，生中際；從中際，生後際；中際生了之後，或趣向流轉、或趣向清淨究竟。

從前際生中際、又趣流轉：有一個人，不了解前際，被無明所攝，以無明為緣，對福業、非福業、不動業（身語意業）去造作、增長。由此「隨業識」一直到命終流轉不絕，能當「後有」相續識的因。這個識將要受生果時，由內外的貪愛正現在前當助伴，從前際捨命之後，就在現在世得到自體（受生）。在母腹中，以「因識」為緣，「相續的果識」前後次第而生，乃至到羯羅藍等位次第而轉。在母胎中，相續的果識與「名色」俱起，乃至衰老、漸漸增長。那時感生的受業，叫「已與異熟果」。又這「異熟識」就依著名色而轉，因為必須依託「六依（六根）」而轉，所以經說「名色緣識」。（「俱有依根」叫「色」、「等無間滅依根」叫「名」，隨其所應當六識的所依；依著它，乃至命終諸識流轉。又五色根、根所依的大種、根的處所、能生根的大種，叫「色」；其餘叫「名」。由識執受諸根、墮入相續法才得流轉，所以這名、色二者依止於識、相續不斷。）由這道理，現在世「識緣名色、名色緣識」，就像兩束蘆葦互相依靠，乃至命終相依而轉——這就是「從前際生中際的諸行緣起，中際生了、流轉不絕」。（這是依胎生說流轉次第；卵生、濕生者除了「處母胎」一段、其餘如前；有色有情中受化生的，諸根一出生就決定圓滿，與前不同；無色界，以名為依、以色種子為依，識得生起，再以識為依、令名及色種子轉，從此種子、色雖斷絕、後更得生，與前不同。又由福業生欲界人天、非福業生諸惡趣、不動業生色無色界。）至於「什麼是不生」——由不生故，趣向清淨究竟（這是還滅的一面）。

從中際生後際：中際已受生的人，受兩種先業之果——受「內異熟果」（果報身）、及「境界所生受」的增上果（六塵領受）。這人或因聽了邪法、或因先前串習，對這二果愚迷。由於愚迷「內異熟果」，對「後有之生苦」不能如實知；由於迷「後有」、後際無明增上力，又像前面那樣對諸行去造作增長。由這新造的業，所以這識叫「隨業識」。就在現法中，說「無明為緣故行生、行為緣故識生」——這識在現法中叫「因識」（能攝受後生的果識），總依一切識又叫「六識身」。又這識是「後有名色種子」所隨逐的，這名色種子是「後有六處種子」所隨逐的，這六處種子是「後有觸種子」所隨逐的，這觸種子是「後有受種子」所隨逐的——這總名「中際中後有的引因」（由此能引識乃至受這一期身）。由先前對異熟果愚而引了後有，又由對「第二境界所生受果」愚，就緣著境界的受起「愛」。由這愛，或發欲求、或發有求，或執欲取、或執見取戒禁取我語取。由這愛、取和合滋潤，令前面的「引因」轉名為「有」（這就是後有生因所攝）。從此一斷氣命終，隨先前引因所引的識等（受是最後），這些諸行就生（或漸或頓）。這樣在現法中，「無明觸所生受」為緣故愛、愛為緣故取、取為緣故有、有為緣故生、生為緣故老病死等種種苦。這就是「中際中、無明緣行等、受緣愛等為因緣，後際諸行生」。

還滅（趣清淨究竟）：又有先前集了資糧的人，在現法中從他人聽聞法音，又對二果諸行、對「它的因、它的滅、趣向滅的行」如理作意；由這如理作意為緣，正見得生，從此次第得學、無學的清淨智見。由這智見，無明和愛永斷無餘。由此斷故，對那「不如實知的無明觸所生受」也永斷；由此斷故、永離無明，於現法中證「慧解脫」。若那「無明觸所生受相應心」裡的貪愛，就在這心上得離繫，貪愛永滅，於現法中證「心解脫」。假使那無明不永斷，依著識等（受是最後）的諸行、後際還要生；由無明滅故，更不再起，得「無生法」。所以說：無明滅故行滅，次第乃至異熟生的觸滅故、異熟生的受滅；在現法中無明滅故無明觸滅、無明觸滅故無明觸所生受滅、無明觸所生受滅故愛滅、愛滅故（如前）得無生法。所以說「取等乃至惱（是最後）的諸行永滅」。這樣在現法中諸行不再轉；由不轉故，在現法中、於「有餘依界」證得「現法涅槃」。那時只剩清淨的識緣名色、名色緣識；乃至這有識之身還在，就恒受「離繫受」、不是「有繫受」。這有識身一直到先業所引的壽量、恒相續住；若壽量盡，便捨「識所持的身」，這命根之後再無命根、無餘永滅、不再受生。又這識與一切受任運而滅、其餘因緣先已滅，就不再相續、永滅無餘——這叫「無餘依涅槃界、究竟寂靜處」，也叫「趣求涅槃者，在世尊處梵行已立、究竟涅槃」。

以上由三種相建立緣起：從前際生中際、從中際生後際、又於中際或流轉或清淨——這就是緣起的體性。

（二）緣起的門（八門）

緣起的流轉，依八門：一內識生門、二外稼（莊稼）成熟門、三有情世間死生門、四器世間成壞門、五食任持門、六「自所作業增上勢力、受用隨業所得愛非愛果」門、七威勢門、八清淨門。

（三）緣起的義（緣起到底在說什麼）

什麼是緣起的義？離有情（沒有一個實在的有情）是緣起義；在離有情之上無常是緣起義；在無常之上暫住（剎那暫有）是緣起義；在暫住之上依他（依眾緣）是緣起義；在依他之上離作用（無實作者作用）是緣起義；在離作用之上因果相續不斷是緣起義；在因果相續不斷之上因果相似而轉是緣起義；在因果相似之上自業所作（各依自業）是緣起義。問：為顯什麼義而建立緣起？答：為顯「因緣所攝的染污與清淨」之義。

（四）緣起的差別（無明等支的種種無知與支分分別）

緣起的差別，就是「於前際無知」等等，其餘如經廣說。於前際無知：什麼是對前際無知？就是對過去諸行起不如理分別：「我在過去曾經有嗎？曾經沒有嗎？曾是什麼體性？曾是什麼種類？」對這些事所有的無知。於後際無知：什麼是對後際無知？就是對未來諸行起不如理分別：「我在未來將會有嗎？將會沒有嗎？將是什麼體性？將是什麼種類？」對這些事所有的無知。於前後際無知：什麼是對前後際無知？就是向內生起不如理的猶豫：「什麼是我？我是什麼？現在這個有情從哪裡來？在這裡死後將往哪裡去？」對這些事所有的無知。

於內無知：什麼是對內無知？就是對各別諸行起不如理作意，把它們稱為「我」的無知。於外無知：什麼是對外無知？就是對外在非有情數的諸行起不如理作意，把它們稱為「我所」的無知。於內外無知：什麼是對內外無知？就是對其他相續的諸行起不如理分別，將他執為怨敵、親愛或中性者的無知。於業無知：什麼是對業無知？就是對各種業起不如理分別，認為實有作者的無知。於異熟無知：什麼是對異熟無知？就是對異熟果所攝的諸行起不如理分別，認為實有受者的無知。於業異熟無知：什麼是對業與異熟無知？就是對業及其果起不如理分別的無知。

於佛無知：什麼是對佛無知？就是對佛陀菩提，或不思惟，或作邪思惟，或由放逸，或由疑惑，或由毀謗而有的無知。於法無知：什麼是對法無知？就是對正法善說的體性，或不思惟、或邪思惟、或由放逸、或由疑惑、或由毀謗而有的無知。於僧無知：什麼是對僧無知？就是對僧眾的正行，或不思惟、或邪思惟、或由放逸、或由疑惑、或由毀謗而有的無知。於苦無知：什麼是對苦無知？就是對「苦確是苦的體性」，或不思惟、或邪思惟、或由放逸、或由疑惑、或由毀謗而有的無知；如對苦無知，對集、滅、道三諦的無知也都如此。

於因無知：什麼是對因無知？就是生起不如理分別，或計執無因，或計執大自在、世性、士夫、中間等不平等因而有的無知；如對因無知，對從因所生各種行的無知也同樣如此。又應了知：因為無罪，所以稱為善；因為有罪，所以稱為不善；因為有利益，所以稱為應修習；因為沒有利益，所以稱為不應修習；因為是黑，所以稱為有罪；因為是白，所以稱為無罪；因為黑白混雜，所以稱為有分。於六觸處如實通達無知：什麼是對如實通達六觸處的無知？就是增上慢者對自己所證生起顛倒思惟而有的無知。這樣略說共有十九種無知。

又有七種無知：一、世愚；二、事愚；三、移轉愚；四、最勝愚；五、真實愚；六、染淨愚；七、增上慢愚。前述十九種無知與這七種無知如何彼此相攝？最初三種無知攝入第一世愚；其次三種攝入第二事愚；再其次三種攝入第三移轉愚；再其次三種攝入第四最勝愚；再其次四種攝入第五真實愚；再其次二種攝入第六染淨愚；最後一種攝入第七增上慢愚。

又有五種愚：一、義愚；二、見愚；三、放逸愚；四、真實義愚；五、增上慢愚。前述十九種愚與這五種愚如何彼此相攝？見愚攝前六種無知，以及對從因所生之法的無知；放逸愚攝對業、對異熟、對業及異熟俱有的無知；真實義愚攝對佛、法、僧乃至道諦的無知；增上慢愚攝最後一種無知；應知義愚則通攝一切無知。

又有「無知、無見、無有現觀、黑闇、愚癡、無明闇」這六種無明差別，應隨前述七種無知之事的次第而了知；其中把最後兩種無知之事總合為一，生起最後的無明黑闇。另有一種差別：依聞所成慧、思所成慧、修所成慧所對治的差別，如其次第宣說前三種；再依這些所治煩惱的耎品、中品、上品差別，宣說後三種。由所對治的差別與無明自性的差別，建立這六種無明差別。

接著支分分別（一一支的體性）：身行就是身業（在欲界色界、在下名福非福、在上名不動）；語行就是語業（其餘如前）；意行就是意業（在欲界名福非福、在上二界唯名不動）。眼識：對當來、依止眼根了別色境的識，所有福非福不動行所熏發的「種子識」及那種子所生的「果識」（乃至意識也這樣；欲界具六識、色界唯四、無色界唯一）。受蘊：一切領納種類。想蘊：一切了像種類。行蘊：一切心所造作（意業）種類。識蘊：一切了別種類（諸蘊都通三界）。四大種：地水火風界（通欲色二界）。四大種所造色：十色處及法處所攝色（欲界具十及法處假色、色界有八及法處所攝色而非一切；這也二種：識種子所攝受的種子名色、及所生果名色）。眼處：眼識所依的淨色（由此於色已見現見當見；乃至意處隨應；都該說三時業用差別；也二種：名色種子所攝受的種子六處、及所生果六處；五處在欲色界、第六通三界）。眼觸：三和合（根境識）所生、能取境界淨妙等義（餘觸隨別境；也二種：六處種子所攝受的種子觸、及所生果觸；欲界具六、色界四、無色界一）。樂受：順樂的根境為緣所生的適悅受。苦受：順苦二（根境）為緣所生的非適悅受。不苦不樂受：順不苦不樂二為緣所生、非適悅非不適悅受（欲界三受、色界二受、第四靜慮以上乃至非想非非想處唯第三不苦不樂受；也二種：觸種子所攝受的種子受、及所生果受）。欲愛：欲界諸行為緣所生、對欲界行的染污希求，由此能生欲界苦果；色愛、無色愛同理（生色界、無色界苦果）。欲取：對諸欲的欲貪。見取：除薩迦耶見、對其餘見的欲貪。戒禁取：對邪願所起戒禁的欲貪。我語取：對薩迦耶見的欲貪（初一唯生欲界苦果、餘三通生三界苦果）。欲有：欲界的前時有、業有、死有、中有、生有，及地獄傍生餓鬼人天有，總名欲有（由先所作諸行煩惱攝受所熏發）；色有：除地獄傍生餓鬼人有、其餘是色有；無色有：再除中有、其餘是無色有。（問：為何建立「七有」——地獄傍生餓鬼人天有、業有、中有？答：依三種所作——能引有〔一〕、趣有有〔一〕、受用果有〔五〕。）生：胎卵二生初託生時；等生：身分圓滿、還沒出時；趣：從那出來；起：出已增長；出現：濕化二生身分頓起；蘊得：那諸生位中五取蘊轉；界得：諸蘊因緣所攝性；處得：諸蘊餘緣所攝性；諸蘊生起：諸蘊日日飲食資長；命根出現：諸蘊由餘壽力相續住。（生支略義：生自性、生處位、所生、因緣所攝、任持所引、俱生依持。）老：衰（依止劣而掉動）、老（髮色衰變）、襵（皮膚緩皺）、熟（火力衰減、無力受用欲塵）、氣力損壞（多病無力作事）、黑黶間身（黯黑損容色）、身脊傴曲喘息奔急（行步發起重喘嗽）、形貌僂前（坐時身首低曲）、憑據杖策（住時依杖而立）、昏昧（臥時數重睡眠）、羸劣（無力速覺）、損減（念慧衰退）、衰退（念慧劣、善法不現行）、諸根耄熟（身體尫羸）、功用破壞（於境不明利）、諸行朽故（將終時）、其形腐敗（壽盡身臨壞、無功能）。（老略義：依止、鬚髮、充悅、火力、無病、色相、威儀、無色諸根、有色諸根變壞、時分已過、壽量將盡。）死：彼彼有情（地獄等）、有情種類（即一切）、終（離解支節而死）、盡（由解支節而死）、壞（識離身）、沒（諸色根滅）、捨壽（氣將盡）、捨煖（不動位）、棄捨諸蘊命根謝滅（時死）、死（遇橫緣非時而死）、時運盡（初死未久；又死魔業名時運盡）。（死略義：死、死法、死差別、死後位。）——這就是緣起的差別。

（五）緣起的次第（為什麼這樣排）

問：無明等十二有支，因什麼緣故依這樣的次第宣說？答：愚癡的人必先對所應知道的事生起愚癡，接著便對那件事發起邪行；由邪行而使心顛倒，由心顛倒而結生相續；由結生相續而使諸根圓滿，由諸根圓滿而有內外兩種受用境界；由受用境界而生起耽著與希求，由希求而在四處尋覓境界時使煩惱滋長；由煩惱滋長而發起能招後有的可愛業與不可愛業；由所起業的滋長力，在五趣生死中生起苦果；苦果生起後，又有老死等苦，也就是內身變異所引的老死苦，以及境界變異所引的憂、歎、苦、熱、惱。因為這一連串次第，所以世尊如此宣說十二支。

另有一種次第差別，是依兩種緣建立緣起次第：第一，內身緣；第二，受用境界緣。內身緣由前六支所攝，受用境界緣由後六支所攝。最初對內身生起我執等愚癡，由此不能了知各種業所引的苦果異熟，所以發起各種業；業發起後，又隨著那些業多起尋思。由業與識互為助伴，便能招感未來三種苦果：諸根最初生起所攝的苦果、諸根圓滿所攝的苦果、受用境界所攝的苦果，也就是以名色為最初、以觸為最後。又在現法中，依觸為緣生起受，再由受發起愛；由受用境界緣而廣泛追求，或從事業之門，或從利養之門，或從戒禁之門，或從解脫之門，發起欲求、內身求與邪解脫求。在如此追求時，使先前已起的煩惱與業所引五趣生死之果生起；既已受生，老死便隨之而來。

另有一種次第差別，是依三類有情建立：第一，愛樂出世清淨者；第二，愛樂世間清淨者；第三，愛著境界者。由第一類有情，能滅除各支緣起、增長白淨品。由第二類有情，因不能如實了知諸諦道理，若安住正念，便作福業或作有漏修習所引的不動業；若不住正念，便發起非福業。他們的心相續，或由追悔所引，或由不追悔的歡喜所引；又如前面所說，依下品、中品、上品生處，次第招感未來三種苦果，也就是以名色為最初、以觸為最後。由第三類有情，依現前受用境界所生的受，在現法中如前述次第發起後六支，也就是以受為最初、以老死為最後。

問：因什麼緣故，在逆次第中以老死為最初而宣說諸支緣起？答：因為依止宣說諦的道理，以生與老死顯示苦諦。如世尊說：「以新名色之滅為上首法。」問：為什麼不說「以無明之滅為上首」？答：這是依心解脫者而施設；他在現法中使種子苦與未來苦果不生而滅，所以說以名色為最初、以受為最後而得究竟滅。又在現法中領受各種受時，愛與隨眠已被永遠拔除而不再生起，這稱為滅；由愛等滅，以它為先的其餘諸支也都隨之而滅。應知緣起的次第就是如此宣說。

（六）緣起的釋詞（為什麼叫「緣起」）

問：緣起為什麼叫緣起？答：由煩惱繫縛、往諸趣中數數生起，名「緣起」（依字釋名）。又：依託眾緣、速謝滅已、續和合生，名緣起（依剎那義）。又：眾緣過去而不捨離、依自相續而得生起，名緣起（如說「此有故彼有、此生故彼生」）。又：數數謝滅、又相續起，名緣起（依數壞數滅義）。又：於過去世覺了緣性、平等相續而起，名緣起（如世尊言「我已覺悟、正起宣說」，由此名展轉傳說）。

（七）緣起的緣性（各支互為幾種緣）

問：無明對行是幾種緣？答：對有色的行是「增上緣」，對無色的行是三緣（等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）。其餘支照此知：有色支對有色支是一增上緣、對無色支是二緣（所緣緣、增上緣）；無色支對有色支唯一緣、對無色支三緣。問：為什麼諸支相望沒有「因緣」？答：「因緣」是自體種子緣所顯，（諸支相望非種子關係）。問：那為何說「依因果體性建立緣起」？答：依增上緣所攝的「引發因、牽引因、生起因」說名為因。（問：幾支是引因所攝？答：從無明到受。幾支是生因所攝？答：從愛到有。幾支是生引二因之果？答：現法後法中、識等乃至受、在生老死位所攝諸支。）

接著是一長串疑問與抉擇——

問：無明既以「不如理作意」為因，為何緣起教中不先說它？答：它只是「不斷因」、不是「雜染因」（不愚者不起此作意；無明自性染污、不如理作意自性非染污，所以它不能染污無明，反由無明力所染污；又生雜染是業煩惱力所熏發、業的初因就是初緣起，所以不說不如理作意）。問：為何不說自體為自體緣？答：自體若不得餘緣，於自體的雜染既不增長也不損減，所以不說。問：福行、不動行是由正簡擇而起，為何仍說以無明為緣？答：由不了世俗苦因為緣而起非福行、由不了勝義苦因為緣而生福及不動行，所以也說以無明為緣。問：經說「業以貪瞋癡為緣」，為何這裡唯說癡為緣？答：這裡通說福非福不動業之緣，而貪瞋癡之緣唯生非福業。問：身語業由思所發起，那「行緣行」，為何但說「無明緣行」？答：依「發起一切行之緣」說、及依「生善染污思之緣」說。問：識也以名色為緣，為何但說「行緣識」？答：行是識的雜染緣（能引能生後有果），不像名色只是所依所緣的生起緣。問：名色也由大種所造及由觸生，為何但說識為緣？答：識能當它的「新生因」（它生已或正生時，大種及觸只當建立因）。問：經說「六界為緣得入母胎」，為何這裡唯說識界？答：有識界，母胎中精血大種腹穴決定不缺；又識界勝；又依一切生、一切有生時而說。問：六處也以飲食為緣，為何但說名色為緣？答：名色是它的生因（生已、飲食才當任持因）。問：觸以三和為緣，為何但說六處為緣？答：有六處、決定有餘二（根境）不缺；又六處勝、攝二種。問：受由自他逼迫、時候變異、先業所引皆得生，為何但顯觸為緣？答：觸是它的近因（餘緣所生的受也從觸生、必不離觸）。問：無明也生愛、順愛境界也為緣，為何但說受為緣？答：以受力故、於相似境求和合或乖離；由愚癡力、但於諸受起盡等相不如實知、不能制御其心。問：隨眠未斷、順彼諸法取皆得生，為何但說愛為取緣？答：由希望生、追求時能發隨眠及引隨順法。問：前已說無明緣發起業有，為何又說取緣有？答：由取力令彼業於彼彼生處能引識名色等果。問：生也以精血等為緣，為何唯說有緣生？答：有「有」故決定有餘緣不缺、又有勝。問：老死也由遠行、不避不平等、他所逼迫為緣，為何但說生緣老死？答：必以生為根本（縱缺彼緣、但有生為緣、定有老死）。

問：這十二支，幾是煩惱道、幾是業道、幾是苦道？答：三是煩惱道（無明、愛、取）、二是業道（行、有）、其餘是苦道。問：幾唯因、幾唯果、幾通因果？答：初一（無明）唯因、後一（老死）唯果、其餘通因果（另一答：三唯因、二唯果、其餘亦因亦果）。問：幾是獨相、幾是雜相？答：三是獨相、行等是雜相（行有是雜相，由「能引愛非愛果、能生趣差別」二說；識與名色六處一分是雜相，由「依雜染時、依潤時、依轉時」三說；識乃至受與老死是雜相，由「別顯苦相、顯引生差別」二說）。又：緣起中「數往義」是生已不住、「和合義」是諸緣聚集、「起義」是諸緣和合所引的新新生；「緣起」是諸行生起的法性、「緣生」是它生已（之果）。問：幾支苦諦攝、現法為苦？答：二（生、老死）。幾支苦諦攝、當來為苦？答：識乃至受的種子性。幾支集諦攝？答：其餘支。

問：無明對行，是作俱有緣、無間滅緣，還是久遠滅緣？答：應知三種緣都具足。由無知在隨順各種行的法中，成為同時存在的覆障緣，發起彼彼事中的各種行，所以是俱有緣；又由與惡見、放逸俱行的無知，成為前念滅後念生的緣而發起諸行，所以是無間滅生起緣；又由無知成為久遠滅後的引發緣，建立隨順它而將生的相續，所以是久遠滅引發緣。

問：如何知道諸行對識作三種緣？答：各種行能熏發識的種子，所以作俱有緣；緊接著由那熏習勢力運轉，所以作無間滅生起緣；由它使未來的果識得以生起，所以作久遠滅引發緣。如行對識，識對名色、名色對六處、六處對觸、觸對受，也應如此了知。

問：如何知道受對愛作三種緣？答：由受生起對境界的樂著，所以作俱有緣；緊接著由受的勢力，使追求等作用運轉，所以作無間滅生起緣；又由受建立未來難以解脫的愛相續，所以作久遠滅引發緣。問：如何知道愛對取作三種緣？答：由欲貪與愛俱行，在隨順於取的法中安立欲樂，所以作俱有緣；由愛無間滅後的勢力運轉，所以作無間滅生起緣；又建立未來難以解脫的取相續，所以作久遠滅引發緣。

問：如何知道取對有作三種緣？答：由取與業俱行，使業能招感各趣果，所以作俱有緣；又由取的力量，使業在彼彼生處能引識、名色等，所以作無間滅生起緣；又能引發相應界地的功能，所以作久遠滅引發緣。問：如何知道有對生作三種緣？答：由有熏發生的種子，所以作俱有緣；由有的勢力無間隨轉，所以作無間滅生起緣；雖然有已久遠滅去，果仍然生起，所以作久遠滅引發緣。如有對生，應知生對老死作緣也是如此。

又，建立「有支」有兩種方式：第一，就其中的殊勝部分建立，也就是取所攝受的業，如前已說；第二，就全部內容建立，也就是業，以及識乃至受所有的種子，全被取所攝受，合而建立為有支。

問：諸有支除了次第為緣，還有別的業用嗎？答：有第二業用（在各別所行境中隨應的業用）。問：無明唯與行為緣、還是也與餘支為緣？答：無明乃至也與老死為緣（前說「唯與行為緣」是說「近緣」；其餘也這樣）。又：後支不是前支的緣——為斷後支而斷前支、前斷則後隨斷，不是為斷前支而斷後支，所以唯前為後緣。問：怎麼說「此有故彼有」？答：由未斷緣、餘得生。問：怎麼說「此生故彼生」？答：由無常緣、餘得生。問：為何說「有生故有老死」？答：要由生為緣才有老死，如此上推，乃至由無明為緣才有行；由這一言教顯示「從沒有真實作用的緣，其餘法仍得生起」。問：為何說「有生故有老死、非離生緣而有老死」？答：由此言教顯「從自相續之緣、即自相續、餘得生」。

接著是四種「四句」抉擇——

問：若以無明為緣的，就是行嗎？是行的，就以無明為緣嗎？答：作四句：(一)是行非無明為緣（無漏及無覆無記的身語意行）；(二)無明為緣而非行（除行外、其餘有支）；(三)亦無明為緣亦是行（福非福不動的身語意行）；(四)除上、是第四句。問：若以行為緣的就是識嗎？若是識，就以行為緣嗎？答：四句：(一)行為緣非識（除識外餘有支）；(二)識非行為緣（無漏識及無覆無記識、除異熟生）；(三)亦識亦行為緣（後有種子識及果識）；(四)餘。（由此乃至「觸緣受」隨應四句。）問：若以受為緣的都是愛嗎？若是愛，就都以受為緣嗎？答：四句：(一)是愛非受為緣（希求勝解脫、及依善愛而捨餘愛）；(二)受為緣非愛（除無明觸所生受為緣、餘有支法生）；(三)亦受為緣亦愛（無明觸所生受為緣、染污愛生）；(四)餘。問：若以愛為緣的都是取嗎？若是取，就都以愛為緣嗎？答：這是「順後句」——所有取都以愛為緣，但「愛為緣而非取」的也有（除取外餘有支、及緣善愛勤精進等諸善法生）。問：若以取為緣的都是有嗎？若是有，就都以取為緣嗎？答：也順後句（所有有皆取為緣；取為緣而非有的，是除有外餘有支）。問：若以有為緣的都是生嗎？若是生，就都以有為緣嗎？答：諸所有生皆有為緣（有為緣而非生的，是除生外餘老死最後支）。問：若以生為緣的都是老死嗎？若是老死，就都以生為緣嗎？答：所有老死皆生為緣（生為緣而非老死的，是疾病、怨憎合會、親愛別離、所求不遂、及所起愁歎憂苦熱惱）。

問：諸有支之中，哪些對道支所攝的正見構成殊勝障礙？答：無明，以及由無明所起的意行，若其中有一部分相應，便能成為正見的殊勝障礙；對正思惟與正精進的障礙也同樣如此。對正語、正業、正命而言，以身行、語行及有支的一部分作為殊勝障礙；對正命〔宋、元、明、宮四本作「正念」〕、正定而言，應知以其餘有支作為殊勝障礙。

問：諸有支之中，哪些只屬雜染品，哪些通於雜染品與清淨品？答：四支只屬雜染品，其餘各支通於雜染、清淨二品。問：為什麼生支通於二品？答：若生在惡趣或有障難之處，就只屬雜染品；若生在人天無障難之處，便通於雜染與清淨二品。應知其餘諸支也隨其所應而通於二品。

問：哪一種無明不存在，所以行也不存在；哪一種無明滅，所以行也滅？答：有發起無明、纏無明、隨眠無明三種；由這些無明滅，所以相應的無明作用滅，由它滅故，行也隨之而滅。問：哪一種行不存在，所以識也不存在；哪一種行滅，所以識也滅？答：各種行已在自己的相續中造作而後滅去，並且尚未生起對治；又由意行存在，才生起身行與語行，所以「此有故彼有」。若意行等不存在，以它為緣的識也不存在；若這些行完全滅除，應知識也隨之而滅。

問：哪一種識不存在，所以名色也不存在；哪一種識滅，所以名色也滅？答：種子識不存在，所以果識也不存在；種子識與果識二者都滅，所以與它們俱行的名色也滅。如識對名色的道理，其餘諸支乃至受，也應隨其所應如此了知。如無明緣行的道理，愛緣取、取緣有也應如此了知；如行緣識的道理，有緣生也應如此了知；如識緣名色的道理，生緣老死也應如此了知。問：哪一種受不存在，所以愛也不存在；哪一種受滅，所以愛也滅？答：應依行緣識的道理而知。

（八）緣起的攝義（甚深·二智·法性·苦芽苦樹·77智44智·結）

問：八緣起門，幾門是十二支緣起所顯、幾門非？答：三門所顯（二門一分所顯——內識生門、自業所作門；一門全分所顯——有情世間轉門），其餘非。問：不如實知緣起道理者，有幾種過患？答：五——起我見、發前際俱行見、後際俱行見、前後際俱行見，及對那見猛利堅執、有取有怖、現法中不般涅槃（第五）。問：如實知者有幾種勝利？答：翻前五過、勝利也五種。

問：十二支中，幾支實有？答：九支實有。幾支不是實有？答：其餘三支。幾支以一事為自性？答：五支。幾支不是以一事為自性？答：其餘各支。幾支是所知障之因？答：一支。幾支能生痛苦？答：五支。幾支是苦的胎藏？答：五支。幾支唯獨是苦？答：兩支。幾支說為因分？答：前六支，也就是無明乃至觸，再加愛、取、有三支，說為因分。幾支說為果分？答：最後生與老死兩支說為果分。幾支說為因果混雜分？答：其餘各支說為雜分。為什麼？因為有兩種受稱為雜分：第一，是後法中以觸為緣的因受；第二，是現法中以愛為緣的果受。這兩種受混合在一起，都說成「觸緣受」。

又問：幾支能生可愛、不可愛的境界果？幾支能生自體果？答：前六支能生可愛或不可愛的境界果，後三支能生自體果，其中一支能同時生這兩種果。又問：幾支與樂受俱行？答：除去兩支，其餘各支與樂受俱行。幾支與苦受俱行？答：就是那些與樂受俱行的支，再加所除兩支中的一支。幾支與不苦不樂受俱行？答：應依樂受俱行的道理而知。幾支不與任何受俱行？答：就是所除兩支中的另一支。

又問：幾支為壞苦所攝？答：與樂受俱行的支，以及不與受俱行之支的一部分，為壞苦所攝。幾支為苦苦所攝？答：與苦受俱行的支，以及不與受俱行之支的一部分，為苦苦所攝。幾支為行苦所攝？答：所有為壞苦、苦苦所攝的支，也同時是行苦所攝的支；另有只為行苦所攝、而不為前二苦所攝的支，就是與不苦不樂受俱行的支，以及不與受俱行之支的一部分。

問：在一切生處及三摩鉢底中，都可以找到一切支現行嗎？答：不能。無想天、滅盡定與無想定中，可以找到有色支，不能找到無色支；生於無色界時，可以找到無色支，不能找到有色支。問：有沒有依某一支而得以遠離另一支的情形？答：有，就是依上地之支而遠離下地之支；然而這只是一部分遠離，不是全部遠離，只是暫時遠離，不是究竟遠離。

問：幾支染污，幾支不染污？答：無明、愛、取三支染污，其餘各支通於染污與不染污兩種；不染污支又有善與無覆無記的差別，所以應分為兩種。問：幾支為欲界所繫？答：一切支，因為它們和合而共同生起。幾支為色界所繫？答：一切支的一部分。問：如何知道色界也有老支？答：因為色界諸行也有朽壞、腐敗的體性。如色界所繫，應知無色界所繫也是如此。

問：幾支是有學？答：沒有一支。幾支是無學？答：也沒有一支。幾支是非學非無學？答：一切支。問：所有善的有漏支，為什麼不是有學？答：因為仍墮在生死流轉中；有學所有的善有漏法則與流轉相違，又以明為緣，所以不屬緣起支。問：預流果已斷幾支？答：一切支的一部分，沒有任何一支完全斷除；一來果也同樣如此。問：不還果已斷幾支？答：欲界一切支都斷，色界、無色界諸支的斷除則不決定。問：阿羅漢已斷幾支？答：三界一切支全都斷除。

問：經中由幾種言說道理說緣起？答：六——順次第、逆次第、一分支、具分支、黑品、白品。問：世尊說「緣起甚深」，這甚深義怎麼知？答：由十相——依無常、苦、空、無我四義說。依無常義：從自種子生、也待他緣；從他緣生、也待自種子；從自種及他緣生，而種、緣對這生事「無作、無用、無運轉」；可這二因的功能又「非不是有」；諸有支雖無始來相成就、卻剎那剎那新新而轉；緣起支雖剎那速滅、卻似停住運動之相現。依苦義：緣起支一味是苦相、卻似三種（苦樂捨）相現。依空義：緣起支雖離有情作者受者、卻似不離（有情）而說。依無我義：緣起支雖不自在、實無我相、卻似我相現；依勝義諦，諸法自性雖不可說、卻說諸法自性可說。問：應以幾智知緣起？答：二——法住智、真實智。法住智：如佛施設開示、無倒而知。真實智：如有學見跡者、觀甚深義。問：世尊言「諸緣起非我所作、亦非餘作，若佛出世若不出世、安住法性法住法界」，什麼是法性、法住、法界？答：諸緣起無始時來「理成就性」是法性；如那成就性、以無顛倒文句安立是法住；由此法住、以彼法性為因，所以叫法界。

問：經中說：「生若沒有，無論任何處所、任何位次，都不可能有生；若一切種類的生都沒有，以生為緣的老死也應不可得。」為什麼這裡又說「彼自性以自性為緣」？答：這是依自種子之果生起而說。識乃至受支是生的種子，所以從義理上把它們說為生；由這些種子存在，後時它們所生的果支就稱為「以有為緣而生」。其餘各支，也應隨經中所說、依其所應而了知。

問：已經說過一切支並不互相為緣，為什麼又建立名色與識互相為緣？答：識在現法中以名色為緣，名色又在後法中以識為緣。為什麼？因為是在母腹中相續時，才說二者互相為緣：由識為緣，母腹中的精血之色被名所攝受，和合而共同成為羯羅藍；隨即以這名色為緣，又使那個識能夠住在羯羅藍中。

問：為什麼菩薩觀察黑品緣起時，只觀到識支，觀察之心就轉回，不再觀到其餘支？答：因為識與名色二支互相為緣：如同識緣名色，名色也緣識，所以觀察之心到了識支便轉回；其餘各支中沒有如此轉回的道理。在識、名色這一處顯示互相為緣的道理，所以稱為「轉還」。在還滅品中，名色不是後有識的還滅因，因此還要越過此處繼續觀察。問：為什麼說緣起支不是自己所作、不是他者所作、不是自他共同所作，也不是無因而生？答：因為實在沒有一個生者，眾緣本身沒有造作作用，而諸支確由眾緣之力所生。

問：緣起中什麼是苦芽，誰守護滋養苦芽，什麼是苦樹？答：由無明、行為緣所引的識乃至受，是「苦芽」；由受為緣所引的愛乃至有，是「守護滋養苦芽」；生與老死，應知就是「苦樹」。問：幾支像燈炷？答：識乃至受。幾支像燈膏？答：無明、行、愛、取、有。幾支像燈焰？答：生與老死。

問：因什麼緣故，在緣起黑品教中稱為「增益」？答：因為一切有支都以純大苦聚作為後果；而且前前各支作緣，後後各支隨之而生。問：因什麼緣故，在白品教中稱為「損減」？答：因為一切支中的前前支永斷，後後支便隨之損減；而且白品正是純大苦聚的損減之因。問：幾支稱為「有因法」？答：前七支。幾支稱為「有因苦」？答：其餘五支。問：幾支之滅由「漏盡」所顯？答：三支。幾支之滅由「緣盡」所顯？答：也是這三支，因為它們是其餘支的緣。幾支之滅由「受盡」所顯？答：一支；因為煩惱已斷，所依身滅時，一切受便全都永遠止息。

問：因什麼緣故，依緣起建立「七十七智」？答：為了顯示了知雜染具有原因的智；又為了顯示了知自己相續中的雜染由自己所作的智；又為了顯示前際各支無始而有；又為了顯示後際各支可以有雜染，也可以還滅；又為了顯示對各支所不攝的所有有漏慧能夠遍知。對每一支都作七種智，應知總共建立七十七智。問：因什麼緣故，在緣起中建立「四十四智」？答：為了顯示對每一支依四聖諦的道理作觀察，所以總共建立四十四智。

又：若生欲界、依欲界身，能引發上地的眼耳、見聞下地及自地的色聲；又依此身起三界意及不繫意現前；若生色無色界、除其下地、一切現前如在欲界。

結：這三種雜染——煩惱雜染、業雜染、生雜染——為了斷除，要修六種現觀：思現觀、信現觀、戒現觀、現觀智諦現觀、現觀邊智諦現觀、究竟現觀。

The third of the three defilements, "birth" (the suffering of birth-and-death drawn on by karma). It falls into four aspects: differences, hardship, uncertainty, and cyclical flow. The last, "cyclical flow," is the full unfolding of the twelve links of dependent origination — the doctrinal summit of the three stages of applied and sustained thought, and the root of the whole treatise's path of practice-and-realization.

Opening: The Four Aspects of the Defilement of Birth

What is called the defilement of birth? It should be understood from four sides: first, by way of differences; second, by way of hardship; third, by way of uncertainty; fourth, by way of cyclical flow.

One: The Differences of Birth (How Many Kinds of Birth There Are)

The differences of birth are of five kinds: difference of realm, difference of destiny, difference of location, difference of superior birth, and difference of one's own person and world. Difference of realm: the difference between birth in the desire realm and birth in the form and formless realms. Difference of destiny: the differences among the five destinies and the four kinds of birth. Difference of location: in the desire realm there are thirty-six locations of birth, in the form realm eighteen locations, in the formless realm four locations — making fifty-eight kinds of birth in all. Difference of superior birth (whether one is born well or ill): among humans in the desire realm there are three superior births — first, the "dark superior birth" (born into the family of a caṇḍāla, of a pukkasa, of a cart-maker, of a bamboo-worker, or into some other lowly, poor family lacking in wealth and food and drink — such a one is called, among humans, one of scant merit); second, the "bright superior birth" (born into the great and noble, wealthy family of a kṣatriya, a brahman, or an elder, or into some other eminent, wealthy family abundant in goods, grain, and stored treasure — such a one is called, among humans, one of superior merit); third, the "neither-dark-nor-bright superior birth" (neither of the former two, born into a family of middling station). Among the gods of the desire realm there are likewise three superior births: first, birth as a non-god (asura); second, birth in dependence on a portion of the earth (dwelling on the earth's surface); third, birth in dependence on palaces in the open sky. In the form realm there are three superior births: first, birth as an ordinary being in the Heaven of No-Perception; second, birth in the heavens that have perception; third, birth in the Pure Abodes. In the formless realm there are three superior births: first, birth in the heaven of Boundless Perception (the Sphere of Boundless Consciousness); second, birth in the heaven of Nothing-Whatsoever; third, birth in the heaven of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception. Difference of one's own person and world: throughout the boundless worlds of the ten directions there are boundless sentient beings and boundless differences of birth.

Two: The Hardship of Birth (How Much Suffering Is Undergone in Cyclic Existence)

As for the hardship of birth, as the World-Honored One said: For a long time you have galloped through birth-and-death, and the blood that has flowed from your bodies exceeds the water of the four great oceans. Why so? Because through the long night you have again and again been born as elephants, horses, camels, donkeys, oxen, sheep, chickens, deer, and the like; and there your bodies and their limbs have often been hacked and severed, making your blood flow in great abundance. As it is in the classes of elephants and the rest, so it is also among humans. Furthermore, through the long night you have lost countless fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and kin, and have lost every kind of wealth, treasure, and means of living, so that the tears from your eyes have flowed in great abundance, matching in measure the blood before. As with the blood and the tears, so too, it should be known, is the measure of the mother's milk you have drunk. Such hardships of birth as these — their sufferings are boundless in their differences.

Three: The Uncertainty of Birth (The Impermanence of the Relations of Cyclic Existence)

As for the uncertainty of birth, as the World-Honored One said: Suppose one were to take all the roots, stalks, branches, and leaves of the grasses and trees of the whole great earth and cut them into small tallies each four fingers long, and use them to count the fathers and mothers you have passed through in your long-night wandering — "this being was once my mother, and I too through the long night was once its mother; this being was once my father, and I too through the long night was once its father" — counting in this way, the four-finger tallies would soon be used up, yet I would still not have told the full measure and limit of the fathers and mothers you have passed through in the long night. And again it is said: You sentient beings, observing for yourselves, have through the long-night wandering completed the foremost, gravest grief and suffering, and only now reach its end. You should know that I too have once undergone suffering as great as this. As with suffering, so too with pleasure. And again it is said: I survey this great earth, and there is not the least spot of ground where, through the long night, you have not undergone countless births and deaths. And again it is said: I survey the sentient beings of the world, and it is hard to find even one who, in the long-night flow, has not at some time been your mother, or father, brother, sister, teacher of conduct, preceptor, or some other elder. And again it is said: If, for a single person, the bones of the body received in a single eon were gathered by someone and kept from rotting, the height of that heap would be greater than Mount Vipula that lies beside the city of Rājagṛha.

Four: The Cyclical Flow of Birth (The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination)

What is the cyclical flow of birth? It is "the dependent origination pertaining to one's own person" — this is what is called cyclical flow.

What Is Dependent Origination?

The outline-headings of dependent origination: its essence, its gates, its meaning, its differences, its sequence, its difficulties (points of doubt), its verbal exegesis, its kinds of condition, the analysis of its conditions, and last, the gathering-in of the various sūtras.

(1) The Essence of Dependent Origination (The Three Junctures · Cyclical Flow and Cessation-Return)

Stated briefly, dependent origination is set up by three characteristics: from the prior juncture, the middle juncture is born; from the middle juncture, the later juncture is born; and once the middle juncture is born, one either heads toward cyclical flow or heads toward the ultimate purity.

From the prior juncture the middle juncture is born, and one further heads toward cyclical flow: There is a certain person who does not understand the prior juncture, who is embraced by ignorance (avidyā) and, with ignorance as condition, performs and augments meritorious karma, non-meritorious karma, and imperturbable karma (deeds of body, speech, and mind). By this, the "karma-following consciousness" flows on unbroken until the very end of life, able to be the cause of the "consciousness that continues into future existence." When this consciousness is about to receive its fruit as birth, inner and outer craving, present right before it, serves as its accompanying aid; and after casting off life at the prior juncture, one obtains one's own embodiment in the present world (taking birth). In the mother's womb, with the "causal consciousness" as condition, the "continuing fruit-consciousness" is born one after another in sequence, evolving through the stages of the kalala and the rest. In the mother's womb the continuing fruit-consciousness arises together with "name-and-form," and gradually grows on until aging. At that point the maturing karma that draws forth birth is said "to have given its karmic-maturation fruit." And this "maturational consciousness" evolves in dependence on name-and-form; because it must evolve in reliance on "the six supports (the six faculties)," the scripture says "name-and-form conditions consciousness." (The "coexistent-support faculties" are called "form," and the "immediately-antecedent-ceasing-support faculties" are called "name," each serving, as appropriate, as the support of the six consciousnesses; in dependence upon them, the consciousnesses flow on right up to the end of life. Again, the five material faculties, the great elements on which the faculties depend, the locations of the faculties, and the great elements that generate the faculties are called "form"; the rest are called "name." It is by consciousness appropriating the faculties and entering into the phenomena of continuity that flow is attained; therefore these two, name and form, rely upon consciousness and continue unbroken.) By this principle, in the present world "consciousness conditions name-and-form, and name-and-form conditions consciousness," like two sheaves of reeds leaning on each other, evolving in mutual reliance right up to the end of life — this is "the dependent origination of the formations by which the prior juncture gives birth to the middle juncture; the middle juncture, once born, flows on unbroken." (This states the sequence of cyclical flow with respect to womb-birth; for those of egg-birth and moisture-birth, except for the passage "in the mother's womb," the rest is as before; among sentient beings with form who take birth by transformation, the faculties are decidedly complete the moment they are born, differing from the above; in the formless realm, with name as support and with the seeds of form as support, consciousness comes to arise, and then, with consciousness as support, name and the seeds of form evolve — from these seeds, though form is cut off, it is later obtained again, differing from the above. Again, by meritorious karma one is born among the humans and gods of the desire realm; by non-meritorious karma one is born into the evil destinies; by imperturbable karma one is born into the form and formless realms.) As for "what is non-birth" — by way of non-birth, one heads toward the ultimate purity (this is the side of cessation-return).

From the middle juncture the later juncture is born: The person who has already taken birth at the middle juncture receives the fruits of two kinds of prior karma — receiving the "inner karmic-maturation fruit" (the retributive body) and the augmenting fruit of "feelings born of the objective realms" (the reception of the six dusts). This person, whether through having heard false teachings or through prior habituation, is deluded about these two fruits. Because of being deluded about the "inner karmic-maturation fruit," one does not know as it truly is the "suffering of birth in future existence"; and because of being deluded about "future existence," under the augmenting force of the later-juncture ignorance, one again, as before, performs and augments the formations. By this newly performed karma, this consciousness is called the "karma-following consciousness." Right within the present phenomena, it is said that "with ignorance as condition, the formations are born; with the formations as condition, consciousness is born" — this consciousness, within the present phenomena, is called the "causal consciousness" (able to appropriate the future-born fruit-consciousness), and gathering all the consciousnesses together it is called the "six bodies of consciousness." Again, this consciousness is what is tracked by the "seeds of the name-and-form of future existence"; these seeds of name-and-form are what is tracked by the "seeds of the six sense-fields of future existence"; these seeds of the six sense-fields are what is tracked by the "seeds of the contact of future existence"; these seeds of contact are what is tracked by the "seeds of the feeling of future existence" — this is together named "the drawing-cause of future existence within the middle juncture" (whereby it can draw forth consciousness through feeling, this one span of embodiment). Having, through prior delusion about the maturation-fruit, drawn forth future existence, and being further deluded about the "second fruit — feelings born of the objective realms," one gives rise to "craving" conditioned by the feeling of the objective realms. By this craving, one arouses either the seeking-of-desire or the seeking-of-existence, and grasps either desire-grasping, or view-grasping, precept-and-vow-grasping, and self-doctrine-grasping. By this craving and grasping conjoined and moistening it, the former "drawing-cause" turns and is named "becoming" (this is what is subsumed under the generating-cause of future existence). From here, when the breath ceases and life ends, following the consciousness and the rest drawn forth by the prior drawing-cause (with feeling as the last), these formations are born (whether gradually or all at once). Thus within the present phenomena, "with the feeling born of ignorance-contact as condition there is craving; with craving as condition, grasping; with grasping as condition, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging, sickness, death, and the various sufferings." This is "within the middle juncture, ignorance-conditions-formations and the rest, and feeling-conditions-craving and the rest, being the causal condition whereby the formations of the later juncture are born."

Cessation-return (heading toward the ultimate purity): There is also one who has previously gathered the requisites, who within the present phenomena hears the sound of the Dharma from another, and who applies proper attention to the formations that are the two fruits, and to "their cause, their cessation, and the practice leading to that cessation." With this proper attention as condition, right view is born; from this, in sequence, the pure knowledge-and-vision of the trainee and of the one-beyond-training is attained. By this knowledge-and-vision, ignorance and craving are forever cut off without remainder. Because of this cutting-off, the "feeling born of ignorance-contact that is not known as it truly is" with respect to that object is also forever cut off; because of this cutting-off, forever parting from ignorance, one realizes within the present phenomena "the liberation of wisdom." And if the craving within the "mind associated with the feeling born of ignorance-contact" is, right upon this mind, freed from its bond, then craving is forever extinguished, and one realizes within the present phenomena "the liberation of mind." Supposing that ignorance were not forever cut off, the formations of the later juncture, in dependence on consciousness and the rest (with feeling as the last), would still be born; but because ignorance has ceased, they no longer arise, and one attains "the state of non-arising." Therefore it is said: because ignorance ceases, the formations cease; in sequence, up to — because the contact that is born of maturation ceases, the feeling that is born of maturation ceases. Within the present phenomena, because ignorance ceases, ignorance-contact ceases; because ignorance-contact ceases, the feeling born of ignorance-contact ceases; because the feeling born of ignorance-contact ceases, craving ceases; because craving ceases (as before), the state of non-arising is attained. Therefore it is said that "grasping and the rest, up to distress (as the last), the formations are forever extinguished." Thus within the present phenomena the formations no longer evolve; and because they do not evolve, within the present phenomena, in the "realm-with-remaining-basis," one realizes "nirvāṇa in the present phenomena." At that time there remains only the pure "consciousness conditioning name-and-form, name-and-form conditioning consciousness"; and as long as this consciousness-bearing body still exists, it constantly receives the "feeling that is free of bonds," not the "feeling that is bound." This consciousness-bearing body abides in unbroken continuity for the full lifespan drawn forth by prior karma; when the lifespan is exhausted, one casts off the "body held by consciousness," and after this life-faculty there is no further life-faculty — it is extinguished forever without remainder, and one no longer takes birth. Furthermore, this consciousness, together with all feeling, ceases spontaneously, and since the remaining causes and conditions have already ceased before, it no longer continues, but is forever extinguished without remainder — this is called "the realm of nirvāṇa without remaining basis, the place of ultimate quiescence," and is also called "the one who heads for and seeks nirvāṇa, who in the presence of the World-Honored One has established the holy life and reached final nirvāṇa."

Thus dependent origination is set up by three characteristics: from the prior juncture the middle juncture is born, from the middle juncture the later juncture is born, and further, within the middle juncture, one either flows cyclically or becomes pure — this is the essential nature of dependent origination.

(2) The Gates of Dependent Origination (The Eight Gates)

The cyclical flow of dependent origination proceeds by eight gates: first, the gate of the arising of inner consciousness; second, the gate of the ripening of the outer crops (grain); third, the gate of the death-and-birth of the world of sentient beings; fourth, the gate of the formation-and-destruction of the container-world; fifth, the gate of the sustaining-by-food; sixth, the gate of "the augmenting force of one's own deeds and the enjoyment of the agreeable and disagreeable fruits obtained according to one's karma"; seventh, the gate of majestic power; eighth, the gate of purity.

(3) The Meaning of Dependent Origination (What Dependent Origination Is Really Saying)

What is the meaning of dependent origination? "Apart from a sentient being" (there being no real sentient being) is the meaning of dependent origination; upon "apart from a sentient being," "impermanence" is the meaning of dependent origination; upon impermanence, "momentary abiding" (existing only for an instant) is the meaning of dependent origination; upon momentary abiding, "dependence on others" (dependence on the assembly of conditions) is the meaning of dependent origination; upon dependence on others, "apart from any [real] operation" (no real agent's operation) is the meaning of dependent origination; upon apart-from-operation, "the unbroken continuity of cause and fruit" is the meaning of dependent origination; upon the unbroken continuity of cause and fruit, "cause and fruit evolving in likeness" is the meaning of dependent origination; upon the likeness of cause and fruit, "performed by one's own karma" (each in dependence on its own karma) is the meaning of dependent origination. Question: To make plain what meaning is dependent origination set up? Answer: To make plain the meaning of "the defiled and the pure, as subsumed under cause and condition."

(4) The Differences of Dependent Origination (The Various Kinds of Not-Knowing (ajñāna) in Ignorance and the Rest, and the Analysis of the Links)

The differences of dependent origination are "not-knowing with respect to the prior juncture" and the rest (as the scripture explains at length). Not-knowing with respect to the prior juncture: giving rise to improper discrimination about past formations — "did I exist in the past? did I not exist? what was my nature? what was my kind?" — such not-knowing. Not-knowing with respect to the later juncture: giving rise to improper discrimination about future formations — "shall I exist in the future? shall I not? …" Not-knowing with respect to the prior-and-later junctures: giving rise, inwardly, to improper hesitation — "what is the self? what am I? whence has this sentient being come? and once passed away here, whither shall it go?" Not-knowing with respect to the inner: applying improper attention to particular formations, grasping them as "self." Not-knowing with respect to the outer: applying improper attention to the outer formations that are not of the class of sentient beings, grasping them as "mine." Not-knowing with respect to the inner-and-outer: giving rise to improper discrimination about the formations in the continua of others, grasping them as within the categories of foe and friend. Not-knowing with respect to karma: giving rise to improper discrimination about the various karmas, grasping that "there is an agent." Not-knowing with respect to karmic-maturation: about the formations subsumed under the maturation-fruit, grasping that "there is an experiencer." Not-knowing with respect to karma-and-maturation: giving rise to improper discrimination about karma and its fruit. Not-knowing with respect to the Buddha: concerning the Buddha's awakening, either not reflecting, or reflecting wrongly, or through heedlessness, doubt, or slander. Not-knowing with respect to the Dharma and not-knowing with respect to the Saṅgha: likewise (with respect to the well-spoken nature of the true Dharma, and the right conduct of the Saṅgha). Not-knowing with respect to suffering: concerning "suffering being of the nature of suffering," either not reflecting, up to slandering; and likewise with respect to origin, cessation, and the path. Not-knowing with respect to cause: giving rise to improper discrimination — either reckoning no-cause, or reckoning the unequal causes of a Lord-God, of primal nature, of a puruṣa, of an intermediary, and the like; and likewise concerning "the formations born from causes" (further: what is without fault is called wholesome, what has fault is called unwholesome; what is beneficial is called to-be-cultivated, what is without benefit is called not-to-be-cultivated; the dark is called faulty, the bright is called faultless, the mixed is called having-a-portion). Not-knowing with respect to the true penetration of the six bases of contact: one of overweening pride giving rise to distorted reflection about what has been realized. — Thus, stated briefly, there are nineteen kinds of not-knowing.

There are also seven kinds of not-knowing: not-knowing of the world, of events, of transmigration, of the supreme, of the real, of the defiled-and-pure, and of overweening pride. (The former nineteen and these seven correspond thus: the first three not-knowings are subsumed under the first, the next three under the second, the next three under the third, the next three under the fourth, the next four under the fifth, the next two under the sixth, and the last one under the seventh.) There are also five kinds of not-knowing: not-knowing of meaning, of view, of heedlessness, of the true meaning, and of overweening pride. (Their correspondence: the not-knowing of view subsumes the former six and the not-knowing of "the formations born from causes"; the not-knowing of heedlessness subsumes the not-knowing of karma, of maturation, and of both together; the not-knowing of the true meaning subsumes the not-knowing of the Buddha and the rest up to the not-knowing of the truth of the path; the not-knowing of overweening pride subsumes the last; the not-knowing of meaning generally subsumes them all.) Again, these six — "not-knowing, non-seeing, having no clear realization, dark-obscurity, folly-and-delusion, and the darkness of ignorance" — are the six differences of ignorance, to be understood in the sequence of the seven not-knowing-events set forth above (the last two not-knowings are combined into one, giving rise to this last "darkness of ignorance"); and there is a further difference: the difference of what is counteracted by the three wisdoms attained through hearing, reflection, and cultivation is stated, in sequence, as the first three; and the difference of the weak, middling, and superior grades of what is counteracted is stated as the last three — thus by the difference of what is counteracted and the difference of nature, the six kinds are set up.

Next, the analysis of the links (the nature of each single link): bodily formation is bodily karma (in the desire and form realms; below it is called meritorious or non-meritorious, above it is called imperturbable); verbal formation is verbal karma (the rest as before); mental formation is mental karma (in the desire realm called meritorious or non-meritorious, in the two upper realms called only imperturbable). Eye-consciousness: the consciousness that, with respect to the future, in dependence on the eye-faculty discerns the visible-form object; namely the "seed-consciousness" perfumed-and-aroused by the meritorious, non-meritorious, and imperturbable formations, and the "fruit-consciousness" born from those seeds (and so too up to mental consciousness; the desire realm has all six consciousnesses, the form realm only four, the formless realm only one). The aggregate of feeling: every kind of receiving. The aggregate of perception: every kind of image-cognizing. The aggregate of formations: every kind of mental construction (mental karma). The aggregate of consciousness: every kind of discerning (all the aggregates pervade the three realms). The four great elements: the earth, water, fire, and wind elements (pervading the desire and form realms). The form derived from the four great elements: the ten form-bases and the form subsumed under the base of dharmas (the desire realm has all ten and the nominal form of the base of dharmas; the form realm has eight and the form subsumed under the base of dharmas but not all; this too is of two kinds: the seed name-and-form appropriated by the seed-consciousness, and the fruit name-and-form born from it). The eye-base: the subtle matter on which eye-consciousness depends (whereby form has been seen, is now seen, and will be seen; and so too up to the mind-base, as appropriate; for all of them one should state the difference of karmic function across the three times; this too is of two kinds: the seed six-sense-fields appropriated by the seeds of name-and-form, and the fruit six-sense-fields born from it; the first five are in the desire and form realms, the sixth pervades the three realms). Eye-contact: born of the concurrence of the three (faculty, object, consciousness), able to grasp the subtle-and-fine and the like of the objective realm (the remaining contacts to be understood as accordant with their respective objects; this too is of two kinds: the seed contact appropriated by the seeds of the six sense-fields, and the fruit contact born from it; the desire realm has all six, the form realm four, the formless realm one). Pleasant feeling: the agreeable feeling born conditioned by the faculties and objects that conduce to pleasure. Painful feeling: the disagreeable feeling born conditioned by the two (faculty and object) that conduce to pain. Feeling that is neither-painful-nor-pleasant: the feeling, born conditioned by the two that conduce to neither-pain-nor-pleasure, that is neither agreeable nor disagreeable (the desire realm has the three feelings, the form realm two, and from the fourth meditative absorption on up to the Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception only the third, neither-painful-nor-pleasant; this too is of two kinds: the seed feeling appropriated by the seeds of contact, and the fruit feeling born from it). Craving-for-desire: the defiled longing for the formations of the desire realm, born conditioned by the formations of the desire realm, whereby the suffering-fruit of the desire realm can be produced; craving-for-form and craving-for-the-formless likewise (producing the suffering-fruit of the form realm and of the formless realm). Desire-grasping: the desire-and-greed for the desires. View-grasping: the desire-and-greed for the remaining views, excluding the view of the transitory collection. Precept-and-vow-grasping: the desire-and-greed for the precepts and vows aroused by wrong aspirations. Self-doctrine-grasping: the desire-and-greed for the view of the transitory collection (the first alone produces only the suffering-fruit of the desire realm; the other three produce the suffering-fruit of all three realms). Desire-existence: the prior-time existence, karmic existence, death-existence, intermediate existence, and birth-existence of the desire realm, together with the existences of the hell-beings, animals, hungry ghosts, humans, and gods — all together named desire-existence (perfumed-and-aroused by the appropriation of the formations and afflictions previously performed); form-existence: excluding the existences of hell-beings, animals, hungry ghosts, and humans, the rest is form-existence; formless-existence: further excluding intermediate existence, the rest is formless-existence. (Question: Why are "seven existences" set up — the existences of hell-beings, animals, hungry ghosts, humans, and gods, karmic existence, and intermediate existence? Answer: In dependence on three kinds of function — existence-that-can-draw-forth [one], existence-that-heads-toward-existence [one], and existence-that-is-the-enjoyment-of-fruit [five].) Birth: the moment when, in womb-birth and egg-birth, one first takes birth; full-birth: when the bodily parts are complete but one has not yet emerged; destiny: emerging from there; arising: growing after having emerged; manifestation: in moisture-birth and transformation-birth, the sudden arising of the bodily parts; acquisition-of-the-aggregates: the evolving of the five appropriated aggregates in those stages of birth; acquisition-of-the-elements: the nature of the aggregates as subsumed by cause and condition; acquisition-of-the-bases: the nature of the aggregates as subsumed by the remaining conditions; the arising of the aggregates: the aggregates being nourished day by day through food and drink; the manifestation of the life-faculty: the aggregates abiding in continuity through the force of the remaining lifespan. (The brief meaning of the link of birth: the nature of birth, the location-stages of birth, what is born, what is subsumed by cause and condition, what is sustained-and-drawn-forth, and the co-born support.) Aging: decline (the base being feeble, so that it is made shaky), aging (the color of the hair transforming in decline), wrinkling (the skin slackening and creasing), maturing-over (the fire-force diminishing, no longer strong enough to enjoy the desire-dusts), damage-to-vital-strength (being much beset by illness, without strength to do one's work), the body dappled with black spots (dark blotches appearing, marring one's complexion), the spine bent and the breath panting-and-hurried (the walking posture displayed in the bodily form, whereby heavy panting and coughing arise), the form stooping-forward (in the sitting posture, body and head bowed low), leaning on a staff (in the standing posture, standing by the strength of a staff), dimness (in the lying posture, repeatedly falling into heavy sleep), frailty (in this same state, without strength to wake quickly), diminishment (the decline of mindfulness and wisdom), deterioration (mindfulness and wisdom being feeble, so that wholesome dharmas cannot manifest in action), the faculties worn out with age (the body scrawny and weak), the collapse of functioning (being no longer keen with respect to objects), the formations grown decrepit (when one is about to reach one's end), and the form rotting-and-decaying (the lifespan about to be exhausted, the bodily form on the verge of ruin, with no more capacity for any task). (The brief meaning of aging: the deterioration of the base, of the hair, of vigor-and-brightness, of the fire-force, of health, of the color-and-marks, of deportment, of the formless faculties, and of the form-possessing faculties; the passing of the time-portion; and the lifespan about to be exhausted.) Death: this or that sentient being (of the hells and so on), the class of sentient beings (that is, all of them), demise (a sentient being dying with the joints not [yet] loosened), exhaustion (a sentient being dying by the loosening of the joints), destruction (consciousness parting from the body), sinking (the various material faculties ceasing), the casting-off of lifespan (the state where the breath is about to be exhausted), the casting-off of warmth (the state of immobility), the abandoning of the aggregates and the passing-away of the life-faculty (timely death), death (encountering an untoward condition and dying out of season), and the exhaustion of the turn-of-time (the state shortly after death first occurs; also the work of Māra-of-death is called the exhaustion of the turn-of-time). (The brief meaning of death: death, the mode of death, the differences of death, and the state after death.) — This is the differences of dependent origination.

(5) The Sequence of Dependent Origination (Why It Is Arranged So)

Question: Why are the twelve links, ignorance and the rest, stated in this sequence? Answer: The person of folly-and-delusion is first deluded about the matters that ought to be known, and then, with respect to them, gives rise to wrong conduct; by the wrong conduct the mind is made to be inverted; by the inversion of the mind, rebirth is joined in continuity; because rebirth is continued, the faculties become complete; because the faculties are complete, there are the two enjoyments of objects; because objects are enjoyed, there arise attachment and longing; because of longing, when seeking after objects the afflictions grow; because the afflictions grow, one arouses the agreeable and disagreeable karma of future existence; by the force of the karma aroused, the suffering-fruit is born within the birth-and-death of the five destinies; and the suffering-fruit having been born, there are the sufferings of aging, death, and the rest (the suffering of aging-and-death drawn forth by the alteration of the inner body, and the sufferings of grief, lament, and burning distress drawn forth by the alteration of objects). Therefore the World-Honored One states the twelve links in this sequence. There is a further difference: the sequence is set up in dependence on two kinds of condition — first, the condition of the inner body (subsumed under the first six links); second, the condition of the enjoyment of objects (subsumed under the latter six links). It is also set up in dependence on three assemblies of sentient beings: first, those who delight in supramundane purity (whereby they extinguish the dependent originations and increase the bright-and-pure class); second, those who delight in worldly purity (who do not know the truths as they truly are, and if they abide in right mindfulness perform meritorious or imperturbable karma, but if they do not abide in right mindfulness perform non-meritorious karma); third, those attached to objects (who, in dependence on the feeling born of objects presently enjoyed, give rise to the latter six links, with feeling first and aging-and-death last). Question: Why is it that, in the reverse sequence, aging-and-death is stated first when setting forth dependent origination? Answer: In dependence on proclaiming "the principle of the truths" — because birth and aging-and-death can make plain "the truth of suffering" (as the World-Honored One said, "the cessation of new name-and-form is the foremost dharma"). Question: Why is it not said that "the cessation of ignorance is foremost"? Answer: It is designated in dependence on "one liberated in mind" — for such a one, within the present phenomena, the seed-suffering and the future suffering-fruit cease without arising, and therefore it is said that "with name-and-form first and feeling last" the ultimate cessation is attained; moreover, within the present phenomena, when experiencing the various feelings, craving and its latent proclivities are forever uprooted and do not arise, and this is called cessation, and by this the remaining links too cease.

(6) The Verbal Exegesis of Dependent Origination (Why It Is Called "Dependent Origination")

Question: Why is dependent origination called "dependent origination" (yuan-qi, "condition-arising")? Answer: Because, bound by the afflictions, one arises again and again amid the various destinies, it is named "dependent origination" (this is glossing the name by the words). Again: because, relying on the assembly of conditions, having swiftly passed away and ceased, one continues by conjunction to arise anew, it is named dependent origination (this by the sense of the momentary). Again: because, though the assembly of conditions passes into the past without being cast off, one comes to arise in dependence on one's own continuum, it is named dependent origination (as it is said, "this being, that is; this arising, that arises," and no otherwise). Again: because, passing away again and again, one continues yet again to arise, it is named dependent origination (this by the sense of repeated perishing-and-ceasing). Again: because, having awakened in the past age to the nature of conditions, one arises in even continuity, it is named dependent origination (as the World-Honored One said, "I have awakened, and now arising I proclaim it," whereby, by this name, it is handed down in successive transmission).

(7) The Kinds of Condition in Dependent Origination (How Many Conditions Each Link Is for Another)

Question: For how many kinds of condition is ignorance to the formations? Answer: For the formations that have form it is the "predominant condition"; for the formations that are formless it is three conditions (the immediately-antecedent condition, the object-condition, and the predominant condition). The remaining links are to be known accordingly: a form-possessing link is, for a form-possessing link, one predominant condition; for a formless link, two conditions (the object-condition and the predominant condition); a formless link is, for a form-possessing link, only one condition; for a formless link, three conditions. Question: Why is there no "causal condition" among the links in relation to one another? Answer: Because the "causal condition" is what is made manifest by the condition that is the seed of one's own substance (and the links, in relation to one another, are not in a seed-relation). Question: Then why is it said that "dependent origination is set up in dependence on the nature of cause-and-fruit"? Answer: In dependence on the "drawing-forth cause, the pulling-in cause, and the arising cause" subsumed under the predominant condition, it is called cause. (Question: How many links are subsumed under the drawing-cause? Answer: From ignorance up to feeling. How many links are subsumed under the generating-cause? Answer: From craving up to becoming. How many links are the fruit of the two causes, generating and drawing? Answer: In the present and later phenomena, the links from consciousness up to feeling, subsumed under the stages of birth and aging-and-death.)

Next comes a long string of doubts and determinations —

Question: Since ignorance has "improper attention" as its cause, why is that not stated first in the teaching of dependent origination? Answer: Because it is merely the "non-cutting-off cause" and not the "defiling cause" (one who is not deluded does not give rise to this attention; the nature of ignorance is defiled, whereas the nature of improper attention is not defiled, so that it cannot defile ignorance, but is on the contrary defiled by the force of ignorance; moreover, the defilement of birth is perfumed-and-aroused by the force of karma and affliction, and the initial cause of karma is precisely the initial dependent origination, so improper attention is not stated). Question: Why is one's own substance not stated as the condition for one's own substance? Answer: Because if one's own substance obtains no other condition, the defilement of one's own substance neither grows nor diminishes, and therefore it is not stated. Question: Meritorious formations and imperturbable formations arise through the power of right discernment; why then are they still said to have ignorance as condition? Answer: Because it is by not fully understanding the worldly cause of suffering as condition that non-meritorious formations arise, and by not fully understanding the ultimate cause of suffering as condition that meritorious and imperturbable formations are born, and therefore these too are said to have ignorance as condition. Question: The scripture says "karma has greed, hatred, and delusion as condition"; why here is delusion alone stated as condition? Answer: Here it speaks generally of the condition for meritorious, non-meritorious, and imperturbable karma, whereas the condition of greed, hatred, and delusion produces only non-meritorious karma. Question: Bodily and verbal karma are aroused by volition, so then "formation conditions formation"; why is only "ignorance conditions formation" stated? Answer: It is stated in dependence on "the condition that arouses all the formations," and in dependence on "the condition that gives rise to wholesome and defiled volition." Question: Consciousness too has name-and-form as condition; why here is only "formation conditions consciousness" stated? Answer: Because the formation is the defiling condition of consciousness (able to draw forth and generate the fruit of future existence), unlike name-and-form, which is merely the arising-condition that is support and object. Question: Name-and-form too is derived from the great elements and born of contact; why is only consciousness stated as its condition? Answer: Because consciousness can be its "new-arising cause" (once it has arisen, or when it is just arising, the great elements and contact serve only as its establishing-cause). Question: The scripture says "with the six elements as condition one enters the mother's womb"; why here is only the element of consciousness stated? Answer: Because where there is the element of consciousness, the blood-and-semen, the great elements, and the cavity of the womb are decidedly not lacking; moreover, the element of consciousness is superior; moreover, it is stated in dependence on all births, at the time of the birth of all existence. Question: The six sense-fields too have food as condition; why is only name-and-form stated as condition? Answer: Because here name-and-form is stated to be their generating-cause (once they have arisen, food too serves as their sustaining-cause). Question: Contact has the concurrence of three as condition; why is only the six sense-fields stated as condition? Answer: Because where there are the six sense-fields, decidedly the remaining two (faculty and object) are not lacking; moreover, the six sense-fields are superior, subsuming the two. Question: Feeling can be born whether from self-oppression, other-oppression, alteration of the seasons, or being drawn forth by prior karma; why is only contact made plain as its condition? Answer: Because contact is its near cause (feeling born of the other conditions is also born from contact, and is never apart from contact). Question: Ignorance too gives rise to craving, and objects that conduce to craving can also serve as condition; why is only feeling stated as condition? Answer: Because it is by the force of feeling that, toward similar objects, one seeks either conjunction or separation; and by the force of folly-and-delusion, one simply does not know, as it truly is, the marks of arising-and-perishing of the feelings, and so cannot govern one's mind. Question: Since the latent proclivities are not cut off, all the graspings that accord with those dharmas can be born; why is only craving stated as the condition for grasping? Answer: Because from the arising of longing, when pursuing, one can arouse the latent proclivities and draw forth the dharmas that accord with them. Question: It was already said that ignorance-as-condition arouses karmic-existence; why now is it said that grasping-conditions-becoming? Answer: Because it is by the force of grasping that that karma, in these and those places of birth, can draw forth the fruits of consciousness, name-and-form, and the rest. Question: Birth too has blood-and-semen and the rest as condition; why is only becoming stated as the condition for birth? Answer: Because where there is becoming, decidedly the remaining conditions are not lacking; moreover, becoming is superior. Question: Aging-and-death too can arise conditioned by long travel, by not avoiding the unequal, and by being oppressed by others; why is only birth stated as the condition for aging-and-death? Answer: Because birth must be its root (even if those other conditions are lacking, so long as there is birth as condition, there is decidedly aging-and-death).

Question: Of these twelve links, how many are the path of affliction, how many the path of karma, how many the path of suffering? Answer: Three are the path of affliction (ignorance, craving, grasping), two are the path of karma (formations, becoming), and the rest are the path of suffering. Question: How many are cause only, how many fruit only, how many both cause and fruit? Answer: The first one (ignorance) is cause only, the last one (aging-and-death) is fruit only, and the rest are both cause and fruit (by another answer: three are cause only, two are fruit only, and the rest are both cause and fruit). Question: How many are single-marked, how many mixed-marked? Answer: Three are single-marked, formations and the rest are mixed-marked (formations and becoming are mixed-marked, by the two statements that "they can draw forth agreeable and disagreeable fruit" and "they can generate the differences of destiny"; consciousness, name-and-form, and a portion of the six sense-fields are mixed-marked, by the three statements "in dependence on the time of defilement," "in dependence on the time of moistening," and "in dependence on the time of evolving"; consciousness up to feeling, together with aging-and-death, are mixed-marked, by the two statements that "they distinctly make plain the mark of suffering" and "they make plain the difference of drawing-forth and generating"). Again: within dependent origination, "the sense of arising-again" is the sense of "having arisen, not abiding"; "the sense of concurrence" is the sense of "the assembling-together of the conditions"; "the sense of arising" is the sense of "the ever-new arising drawn forth by the concurrence of conditions"; "dependent origination" is the dharma-nature of the arising of the formations, and "dependent-arising" is that which, having arisen, is its fruit. Question: How many links are subsumed under the truth of suffering and are suffering in the present phenomena? Answer: Two (birth and aging-and-death). How many links are subsumed under the truth of suffering and are suffering in the future? Answer: The seed-nature of consciousness up to feeling. How many links are subsumed under the truth of origin? Answer: The remaining links.

Question: Are ignorance and formations coexistent conditions, immediately-antecedent-ceasing conditions, or long-past-ceasing conditions? Answer: They fully serve as three conditions — by not-knowing, in relation to the dharmas of formations that accord with it, it serves as the "coexistent covering-and-obstructing condition," and further, arousing this or that formation-event; and by the not-knowing that operates together with evil views and heedlessness, it serves as the "immediately-antecedent-ceasing arising-condition," arousing the formations; and by not-knowing serving as the "long-past-ceasing drawing-forth condition," it sets up the continuum that accords with those [formations] to arise. The formations too, in relation to consciousness, are three conditions (perfuming-and-arousing the seed, as the coexistent condition; evolving by their force, as the immediately-antecedent-ceasing arising-condition; the future fruit being born, as the long-past-ceasing drawing-forth condition); as the formations are to consciousness, so too are consciousness to name-and-form, name-and-form to the six sense-fields, the six sense-fields to contact, and contact to feeling. Feeling to craving, craving to grasping, grasping to becoming, becoming to birth, and birth to aging-and-death — all likewise are three conditions. (Again: the link of "becoming" is set up in two ways — first, set up by way of the superior portion [the karma appropriated by grasping]; second, set up in full [the seeds of karma and of consciousness up to feeling, appropriated by grasping].)

Question: Besides serving in sequence as condition, do the various links have any further function? Answer: They have a second function (the respective functions within their several fields of activity). Question: Is ignorance a condition for the formations only, or is it also a condition for the remaining links? Answer: Ignorance is a condition even up to aging-and-death (the former statement, "a condition for the formations only," speaks of the "near condition"; so too for the rest). Again: a later link is not a condition for a prior link — for the sake of cutting off a later link one cuts off the prior link, and when the prior is cut off the later is cut off in its wake; it is not for the sake of cutting off the prior that one cuts off the later, and so it should be known that only the prior is a condition for the later. Question: How is it said that "this being, that is"? Answer: By the sense that, the condition not being cut off, the rest can arise. Question: How is it said that "this arising, that arises"? Answer: By the sense that, by the impermanent condition, the rest can arise. Question: Why is it said that "there being birth, there is aging-and-death" (aging-and-death being there only by birth as condition… and so on up to ignorance in relation to the formations)? Answer: By this teaching-principle is made plain the sense that "from a condition without real operation, the rest can arise." Question: Why is it said that "there being birth, there is aging-and-death, and there is no aging-and-death apart from birth as condition," and so on up to ignorance in relation to the formations? Answer: By this teaching-principle is made plain the sense that "from the condition that is one's own continuum, that very own continuum, the rest can arise."

Next come the determinations by four kinds of "tetralemma" —

Question: If a thing has ignorance as condition, is it a formation? And if it is a formation, does it have ignorance as condition? Answer: Make a tetralemma: (i) it is a formation but not ignorance-conditioned (the uncontaminated, and the unobscured-neutral, formations of body, speech, and mind); (ii) it is ignorance-conditioned but not a formation (the remaining links, excluding the formations); (iii) it is both ignorance-conditioned and a formation (the meritorious, non-meritorious, and imperturbable formations of body, speech, and mind); (iv) excluding the above, that is the fourth case. Question: If a thing has formation as condition, is it consciousness?… Answer: A tetralemma: (i) formation-conditioned but not consciousness (the remaining links, excluding consciousness); (ii) consciousness but not formation-conditioned (uncontaminated consciousness and unobscured-neutral consciousness, excluding that which is born of maturation); (iii) both consciousness and formation-conditioned (the seed-consciousness and fruit-consciousness of future existence); (iv) the rest. (By this, on up to "contact conditions feeling," the tetralemma applies as appropriate.) Question: If a thing has feeling as condition, is it all craving?… Answer: A tetralemma: (i) it is craving but not feeling-conditioned (longing for the superior liberation, and, in dependence on wholesome craving, the abandoning of the other cravings); (ii) feeling-conditioned but not craving (excluding the feeling born of ignorance-contact as condition, the remaining links-dharmas that are born); (iii) both feeling-conditioned and craving (the defiled craving born conditioned by the feeling born of ignorance-contact); (iv) the rest. Question: If a thing has craving as condition, is it all grasping?… Answer: This is a "consequent-to-the-latter case" — all grasping has craving as condition, but there is also "what is craving-conditioned yet not grasping" (the remaining links excluding grasping, and the wholesome dharmas born in dependence on wholesome craving, diligent effort, and the like). Question: If a thing has grasping as condition, is it all becoming? Answer: Also a consequent-to-the-latter case (all becoming has grasping as condition; "what is grasping-conditioned yet not becoming" is the remaining links excluding becoming). Question: If a thing has becoming as condition, is it all birth? Answer: All that is born has becoming as condition ("what is becoming-conditioned yet not birth" is the remaining, last link of aging-and-death, excluding birth). Question: If a thing has birth as condition, is it all aging-and-death? Answer: All aging-and-death has birth as condition ("what is birth-conditioned yet not aging-and-death" is sickness, meeting with the hated, parting from the loved, not getting what one seeks, and the grief, lament, sorrow, suffering, and burning distress that arise from these).

Question: Of the various links, how many are a strong obstruction to "right view" (a path-limb)? Answer: Ignorance and the mental formation it arouses, if in part, can be a strong obstruction; likewise for right thought and right effort; for right speech, right action, and right livelihood, bodily formation and verbal formation and a portion are the strong obstruction; for right livelihood 〔the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace editions read "right mindfulness"〕 and right concentration, the remaining links are the strong obstruction. Question: How many links are of the defiled class only, how many pervade both the defiled and the pure classes? Answer: Four are of the defiled class only; the rest pervade both classes (the link of birth: birth in an evil destiny or a difficult circumstance is defiled only; birth among humans and gods, in a place without difficulty, pervades both defiled and pure). Question: What ignorance, being absent, makes the formations absent; what ignorance, ceasing, makes the formations cease? Answer: There are three kinds of ignorance — that which arouses, that which enwraps, and that which is latent; and because this ignorance ceases, the formations cease in its wake. (Because the formations are absent, consciousness is absent; because consciousness ceases, name-and-form ceases… and so on up to feeling, all to be inferred as appropriate.)

(8) The Gathering-In of the Meaning of Dependent Origination (Its Profundity · The Two Knowledges · Dharma-Nature · The Sprout-of-Suffering and Tree-of-Suffering · The Seventy-Seven and Forty-Four Knowledges · Conclusion)

Question: Of the eight gates of dependent origination, how many gates are made manifest by the twelve-linked dependent origination, and how many are not? Answer: Three gates are made manifest (two made manifest in part — the gate of the arising of inner consciousness and the gate of what is performed by one's own karma; one made manifest in full — the gate of the evolving of the world of sentient beings); the rest are not. Question: For one who does not know the principle of dependent origination as it truly is, how many kinds of fault are there? Answer: Five — giving rise to the view of self; arousing the view that operates together with the prior juncture; the view that operates together with the later juncture; the view that operates together with both prior and later junctures; and grasping that view sharply and firmly, with grasping and with fear, so that within the present phenomena one does not reach parinirvāṇa (the fifth). Question: For one who knows it as it truly is, how many benefits are there? Answer: The reverse of the former five faults — the benefits too are five kinds.

Question: Of the twelve links, how many are really existent, how many not really existent? Answer: Nine are really existent, the rest are not. How many have a single event as their nature? Answer: Five; the rest are not of a single event. How many are the cause of the cognitive obstruction? Answer: One. How many can generate suffering? Answer: Five. How many are the womb of suffering? Answer: Five. How many are suffering only? Answer: Two. How many are stated as the cause-portion? Answer: The first six (ignorance up to contact) and the three, craving, grasping, and becoming. How many are the fruit-portion? Answer: The last two. How many are the mixed cause-and-fruit portion? Answer: The remaining links (there are two kinds of feeling named the mixed portion — the cause-feeling that, in the later phenomena, has contact as condition, and the fruit-feeling that, in the present phenomena, is the condition for craving; these two are mixedly stated as "contact conditions feeling"). How many links can generate the fruit of agreeable and disagreeable objects, and how many can generate the fruit of one's own embodiment? Answer: The first six generate the former fruit, the latter three generate the latter fruit, and one link generates both fruits together. How many links operate together with pleasant feeling, with painful feeling, with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, and how many do not operate together with feeling? (These are apportioned as appropriate.) How many links are subsumed under the suffering-of-change, the suffering-of-suffering, and the suffering-of-conditioned-formations? (The links that operate together with pleasant feeling and the like belong to the suffering-of-change; the links that operate together with painful feeling and the like belong to the suffering-of-suffering; all the links of the suffering-of-change and the suffering-of-suffering are also links of the suffering-of-conditioned-formations; the links that operate together with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling and the like are the suffering-of-conditioned-formations only.)

Question: In all places of birth and in the meditative attainments (concentrations), are all the links present and active? Answer: They cannot all be found (in the Heaven of No-Perception, the attainment of cessation, and the attainment of non-perception there are the form-links but not the formless links; born in the formless realm there are the formless links but not the form-links). Question: Can one "part from a link in dependence on a link"? Answer: There is such (in dependence on a higher-stage link one parts from a lower-stage link, but only in part, not wholly, and only temporarily, not ultimately). Question: How many links are defiled, how many not defiled? Answer: Three are defiled (ignorance, craving, grasping); the rest pervade both kinds. Question: How many links are bound to the desire realm, how many to the form realm? Answer: In the desire realm, all links arise together and equally; in the form realm, all in part. (Likewise for the formless realm, and because the formations have a decaying-and-decrepit nature there is aging there too.) Question: How many links are of the trainee, of the one-beyond-training, of neither-trainee-nor-one-beyond-training? Answer: None are of the trainee or the one-beyond-training; all links are of neither-trainee-nor-one-beyond-training (the wholesome contaminated links belong to the cyclical flow and so are not of the trainee). Question: How many links do the fruits of stream-entry and once-returning cut off? Answer: All in part; none wholly cut off. The fruit of non-returning? Answer: All in the desire realm; in the form and formless realms, uncertain. The arhat? Answer: All in the three realms.

Question: By how many kinds of teaching-principle does the scripture state dependent origination? Answer: Six — by the forward sequence, the reverse sequence, a partial set of links, the full set of links, the dark class, and the bright class. Question: The World-Honored One said "dependent origination is profound"; how is this profound meaning to be known? Answer: By ten characteristics — stated in dependence on the four meanings of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and no-self. In dependence on the meaning of impermanence: it is born from its own seed, yet also awaits other conditions; it is born from other conditions, yet also awaits its own seed; it is born from its own seed and from other conditions, yet the seed and the conditions, with respect to this birth-event, have no [real] performing, no [real] function, and no [real] carrying-out; and yet the potency of these two causal factors is not non-existent; and though the various links have had their marks accomplished from beginningless time, they evolve ever-new from instant to instant; and though the links of dependent origination perish swiftly in an instant, they appear with the marks of abiding and of motion. In dependence on the meaning of suffering: the links of dependent origination are of one taste, the mark of suffering, yet they appear with three kinds of mark (pleasant, painful, neutral). In dependence on the meaning of emptiness: the links of dependent origination, though apart from any sentient being, agent, or experiencer, are spoken of as though not apart from [a sentient being], appearing so. In dependence on the meaning of no-self: the links of dependent origination, though not self-governing and truly without any mark of self, appear with the mark of self, as it were; in dependence on the ultimate truth, the intrinsic nature of dharmas, though it cannot be stated, is spoken of as though the intrinsic nature of dharmas could be stated. Question: By how many knowledges should dependent origination be known? Answer: Two — the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas and the knowledge of the real. The knowledge of the abiding of dharmas: knowing without error, just as the Buddha has set it forth and revealed it. The knowledge of the real: as when a trainee who has seen the traces contemplates the profound meaning. Question: The World-Honored One said, "These dependent originations are not made by me, nor made by another; whether a Buddha appears in the world or does not appear, they abide in the dharma-nature, the abiding-of-dharma, the dharma-realm"; what are the dharma-nature, the abiding-of-dharma, and the dharma-realm? Answer: The dependent originations' "principle-accomplished nature" from beginningless time is called the dharma-nature; as with that accomplished nature, its being established by undistorted words-and-phrases is called the abiding-of-dharma; and because this abiding-of-dharma has that dharma-nature as its cause, it is therefore called the dharma-realm.

Question: The scripture says, "If there were no birth, in no place and no station could birth exist; if birth of every kind were not, then aging-and-death conditioned by birth could not be found"; why here is it said that "that intrinsic nature is the condition for that intrinsic nature"? Answer: It is stated in dependence on "the fruit born from one's own seed" — the links of consciousness up to feeling are the seed of birth, and are by extension of meaning called birth; because this exists, at a later time this fruit-link is named "birth-with-a-condition" (the remaining links as appropriate). Question: It was already said that all the links are not conditions for one another; why then is "name-and-form and consciousness being mutually conditions" set up? Answer: Consciousness, in the present phenomena, has name-and-form as condition; name-and-form, in the later phenomena, has consciousness as condition (at the time of continuity in the mother's womb, they are said to be mutual conditions — by consciousness as condition, the blood-and-semen matter in the mother's womb is appropriated by name and, conjoined, becomes the nature of the kalala; and this very name-and-form as condition further causes that consciousness to abide therein). Question: Why is it that when the bodhisattva contemplates the dark class, his mind turns back only upon reaching the link of consciousness, and not upon reaching the remaining links? Answer: Because the two links of consciousness and name-and-form are mutual conditions (just as consciousness conditions name-and-form, so too name-and-form conditions consciousness), his contemplating mind turns back upon reaching consciousness; the remaining links have no such principle of turning-back (in the class of cessation-return, name-and-form is not the cessation-return cause of the consciousness of future existence, and for this reason he contemplates further past it). Question: Why is it said that the links of dependent origination are not self-made, not other-made, not made by both, and yet not born without cause? Answer: Because the one born is non-existent; because the condition has no [real] operation; and because they are born by the force of conditions.

Question: In dependent origination, what is the sprout-of-suffering, who guards-and-nourishes the sprout-of-suffering, and what is the tree-of-suffering? Answer: Consciousness up to feeling, drawn forth by ignorance and formations as condition, is the "sprout-of-suffering"; craving up to becoming, drawn forth by feeling as condition, is the "guarding-and-nourishing of the sprout-of-suffering"; birth and aging-and-death, it should be known, are the "tree-of-suffering." How many links are like the wick? Consciousness up to feeling. How many links are like the oil? Ignorance, formations, craving, grasping, becoming. How many links are like the flame? Birth and aging-and-death. Question: Why is it named "over-affirmation" in the dark-class teaching? Answer: Because all the links have the pure great mass of suffering as their later fruit, each prior being the condition for each following. Why is it named "under-denial" in the bright-class teaching? Answer: Because each prior link is forever cut off and each following one diminished (being the diminishing-cause of the pure great mass of suffering). How many links are named "dharmas that have a cause"? The first seven. How many links are named "suffering that has a cause"? The remaining five. The cessation of how many links is made manifest by "the exhaustion of the contaminants"? Three. The cessation of how many links is made manifest by "the exhaustion of the conditions"? These same three (being the conditions for the remaining links). The cessation of how many links is made manifest by "the exhaustion of feeling"? One (when the afflictions have been cut off and the support ceases, all feeling is forever stilled). Question: Why are "seventy-seven knowledges" set up in dependence on dependent origination? Answer: To make plain the knowledge of defilement-that-has-a-cause, the knowledge of the defilement in one's own continuum performed by oneself, the beginninglessness of the prior-juncture links, the possibility of defilement and cessation-return in the later-juncture links, and the full understanding, by the contaminated wisdom not subsumed among the links — making, for each single link, seven knowledges, so that there are seventy-seven knowledges in all. Question: Why are "forty-four knowledges" set up? Answer: To make plain, for each single link, the principle of contemplation by way of the four noble truths, so that there are forty-four knowledges in all.

Again: if one is born in the desire realm, in dependence on a desire-realm body, one can draw forth the eye and ear of a higher stage, seeing and hearing the forms and sounds of the lower stages and of one's own stage; and in dependence on this body one can bring to the fore the mentation of the three realms and the unbound mentation; if one is born in the form or formless realm, then, excluding the lower stages, everything comes to the fore as in the desire realm.

Conclusion: These three defilements — the defilement of affliction, the defilement of karma, and the defilement of birth — in order to cut them off, one should cultivate six kinds of clear realization: the clear realization of reflection, the clear realization of faith, the clear realization of discipline, the clear-realization-knowledge clear realization of the truths, the clear-realization-boundary-knowledge clear realization of the truths, and the ultimate clear realization.

瑜伽師地論 白話全本 · 冊4

有尋有伺等三地 · 界施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Elements

開頭：三地、五門、界的八項建立

一、數建立（界分幾類·三地怎麼分）

二、處所建立（欲界三十六處·色界十八處·無色界四處）

三、有情量建立（各道眾生的身量）

四、有情壽建立（各道眾生的壽量）

五、有情受用建立（受用苦樂·飲食·男女）

（甲）受用苦樂

（乙）受用飲食

（丙）受用男女

六、生建立（三種欲生·三種樂生·三種求）

七、自體建立（得到自體的四種情形）

八、因緣果建立（相·依處·差別·建立）

Opening: The Three Stages, the Five Doorways, and the Eight Items in the Designation of Elements

One · The Designation by Number (How Many Kinds of Element There Are · How the Three Stages Are Divided)

Two · The Designation of Place (the Desire Realm's Thirty-Six Places · the Form Realm's Eighteen Places · the Formless Realm's Four Places)

Three · The Designation of the Measure of Sentient Beings (the Bodily Measure of Beings in Each Destiny)

Four · The Designation of the Lifespan of Sentient Beings (the Lifespan of Beings in Each Destiny)

Five · The Designation of the Enjoyments of Sentient Beings (Enjoyment of Pain and Pleasure · of Food and Drink · of the Sexes)

(A) The Enjoyment of Pain and Pleasure

(B) The Enjoyment of Food and Drink

(C) The Enjoyment of the Sexes

Six · The Designation of Birth (the Three Kinds of Desire-Birth · the Three Kinds of Pleasure-Birth · the Three Kinds of Seeking)

Seven · The Designation of Self-Body (the Four Ways of Obtaining a Self-Body)

Eight · The Designation of Cause-Condition-and-Fruit (Characteristic · Basis · Distinction · Establishment)

有尋有伺等三地 · 相施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Characteristics

開頭：尋伺的七種相

Opening: The Seven Characteristics of Applied and Sustained Thought

有尋有伺等三地 · 如理作意施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied and Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Designation of Attention in Accord with Principle

開頭：如理作意相應尋伺的八項建立

福德的展開：施者、受者、善友、果報

Opening: The Eight Establishments of the Applied and Sustained Thought Associated with Attention in Accord with Principle

The Unfolding of Merit: Donor, Recipient, Good Friend, Reward

有尋有伺等三地 · 不如理作意施設建立The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Establishment of Attention Contrary to Principle

開頭：十六種異論

一、因中有果論（果早就藏在因裡）

二、從緣顯了論（果本來就有，只是被緣「顯」出來）

三、去來實有論（過去未來像現在一樣實有）

四、計我論（有一個實在常住的「我」）

五、計常論（我和世間都常住）

六、宿作因論（一切苦都是前世業所招，靠苦行消舊業）

七、計自在等為作者論（大自在天等造一切）

八、害為正法論（祭祀殺生能生天）

九、邊無邊論（世間有邊／無邊）

十、不死矯亂論（被問就含糊其辭、不正面答）

十一、無因見論（一切無因而生）

十二、斷見論（死後斷滅、什麼都沒了）

十三、空見論（撥無因果、撥無一切法）

十四、妄計最勝論（婆羅門種姓最尊）

十五、妄計清淨論（享樂、禪定、沐浴、苦行就是清淨解脫）

十六、妄計吉祥論（日月星宿占吉凶）

結：十六異論一概不成立

Opening: The Sixteen Heterodox Theories

1. The Theory That the Effect Pre-exists in the Cause (the effect is already hidden within the cause all along)

2. The Theory of Manifestation Through Conditions (the effect exists all along, and the conditions only "manifest" it)

3. The Theory That Past and Future Really Exist (past and future are as really existent as the present)

4. The Theory That Reckons a Self (there is a real, permanently abiding "self")

5. The Theory That Reckons Permanence (both the self and the world are permanently abiding)

6. The Theory of a Former Deed as the Cause (all suffering is drawn on by the actions of former lives, and one wears out old actions through austerities)

7. The Theory That Reckons a Sovereign God and the Like to Be the Creator (the Great Sovereign God and the like create everything)

8. The Theory That Killing Is the True Dharma (sacrificial slaughter can produce rebirth in heaven)

9. The Theory of the Finite and the Infinite (the world is finite / the world is infinite)

10. The Theory of Endless Equivocation Regarding the Deathless (when questioned, they answer vaguely and never directly)

11. The Theory of the View of No-Cause (everything arises without a cause)

12. The Theory of the View of Annihilation (at death one is annihilated and nothing at all remains)

13. The Theory of the View of Emptiness (denying cause and effect, denying all dharmas)

14. The Theory That Falsely Reckons Some Caste Supreme (the brahmin caste is the most exalted)

15. The Theory That Falsely Reckons Some Practice to Be Purity (sensual enjoyment, meditative absorption, bathing, or austerity is itself purity and liberation)

16. The Theory That Falsely Reckons Some Sign to Be Auspicious (the sun, moon, and constellations foretell fortune)

Conclusion: The Sixteen Heterodox Theories One and All Fail to Stand

有尋有伺等三地 · 雜染施設建立 · 煩惱雜染The Basic Section · The Three Stages of Applied-and-Sustained Thought and the Rest · The Establishment of the Designation of Defilement · The Defilement of Afflictions

開頭：雜染分三·煩惱九門

一、煩惱的自性（它本來是什麼）

二、煩惱的分別（分多少種）

三、煩惱的因（什麼引起煩惱）

四、煩惱的位（煩惱有哪些狀態）

五、煩惱的門（煩惱從哪些門惱人）

六、煩惱的上品相（什麼叫最重的煩惱）

七、煩惱的顛倒攝（煩惱與七顛倒）

瑜伽師地論白話全本 · 冊4