The Sumangalavildsinisays that, through Vinaya, one obtains morality (sila), thus vitikkamappahdna, the abandoning of the outflowing of the defilements, that is, the abandoning of transgressions: for morality is opposed (patipakkha) to the vitikkama of the kilesas; it is opposed to the outflowing of the
defilements
and their manifestation through actions.
Abhidharmakosabhasyam-Vol-3-Vasubandhu-Poussin-Pruden-1991-PDF-Search-Engine
520.
9 paryavasthdna is used to
Footnotes 869
? 870 Chapter Five
describe all the defilements in an active state: "his paryavasthana of affection disappears in order to make room for the paryavasthana of hatred. " Childers: Mdrena pariyupphitacitto: having a mind possessed by Mara.
The distinction between paryavasthana and paryutthdna appears to be chiefly verbal: there is paryutthdna when a defilement rises {kun nas Idan ba: to arise, to expand, to explode); there is paryavasthana when a defilment surrounds {kun nas dkris pa). We have seen that rdgapariyupphita = rdgapateta {Anguttara, iii. 233). Some expressions of equivocal meaning are brought together in Anguttara, 166; kdmardga-vinivesa-vinibandha-paligedha- pariyupphdna-ajjhosdna.
10. According to Vasumitra (172a, Wassilief, p. 265), the Mahasamghikas say: "The anusayas are neither mind {citta) nor mental states {caitta). They do not have an object {analambana, comp. Kofa, i. 34, ii. 34b). The anufayas are different from the paryavasthdnas {kun nas dkris pa): the first are disassociated from the mind {viprayukta), whereas the second are associated with the mind {samprayukta)" The Sarvastivadins (173b, Wassilieff, p. 274) say: "The anusayas are mental states, and are associated with the mind. All the anusayas are paryavasthana, but all paryavasthdnas are not anuiaya. "
According to Bhavya (180a, Rockhill, p. 188), the Ekavyavaharikas say: "Since the mind is pure in nature, one cannot say that the anusayas are associated with the mind or disassociated from the mind. The anusayas are different from paryutthdnas {kun nas Idan ba). " [See Mahdvyutpatti, 30. 9. 55; 109. 59. 57]. On the mind which is pure by nature, Anguttara, i. 10, Ko/a, vi. 77, Wassilieff, 265.
According to Nettippakarana, p. 79: "Former avidyd is the cause of later avidyd: former avidyd is anusaya of avidyd; later avidyd is the paryutthdna of avidyd. "
The Andhakas maintain: "Anufaya is different from pariyuppphdna"; an ordinary person's mind is good, but he does not however cease from being "endowed with anusaya" {sdnusaya); but one cannot say that he is pariyupthita, enveloped [by the defilements]. {Kathdvatthu, xiv. 5). The same Andhakas maintain that pariyupphdna is disassociated from the mind (xiv. 6).
The Andhakas and certain Uttarapathakas say that the anusayas do not have an object {andramana) (ix. 4); the Mahasamghikas and the Sammitiyas say that the anusayas are morally neutral, without causes, and disassociated from the mind (xi. l). Anusaya as distinct from pariyutthdna, Vibhanga, p. 383.
11. The objectors, according to the Vydkhyd, are the Vatslputriyas; according to the Japanese editor (=Kyokuga Saeki), the Mahasamghikas (See Vasumitra quoted note 10).
12. The anubandha of one defilement is the fact that it is favorable to the production of other defilements. We can also undestand anusaya in the sense of anuvrtti: "One abandons kdmardga together with its continuation. "
13. By metaphor, anus*aya = anuiayaprapti, a cause being designated by the name of its effect {upacdra); in its correct sense {mukhyavrtti), anuUya - paryavasthana.
14. This is the argumentation of Dharmottara, the author of Taisho no 1550 (Note of the Japanese editor).
eittaklesakaratvdd dvaranatvdc chubhair viruddharvdt // kusalasya copalambhdd aviprayuktd ihanusayah //
15. If an anusaya is disassociated from the mind, the anusaya is the "possession" of the defilement; now as long as a person is not definitively detached from the defilement, he keeps the "possession" of the defilement; thus he can never have a good mind.
? 16. On the theory of the seed (bija) and of its capacity (fakti), see ii. 36d (trans, pp. 211, 274); Chapter IX, trans. Stcherbatski, p. 947, Hsiian-tsang, xxx. l3b. On memory, Chapter IX, Stcherbatski, p. 852; xxx. 7a.
17. The Vatslputrlyas (Vyakbya) or the Mahasarhghikas (Japanese editor).
18. Reading of the Vydkbyd; according to the Tibetan version: ragdnuiayo'nuiete. Majjhima, iii. 285: so sukhdya vedandya putto samdno abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosayatipphati / tassa rdgdnusayo anuseti.
19. Quoted in the Vyakbya below ad 36a-b with the reading krtah.
20. Paramartha: " . . . these also make ten. "
21. The anu/ayas are ten on the basis of their natures. By taking into consideration the sphere to which they belong and their mode of expulsion (Seeing each of the Four Truths and Meditation), one obtains the number of ninety-eight. According to the Yogacaras, one hundred and eight, see v. 8; and below note 35.
Vasubandhu, faithful to his task, presents the system of the Abhidharma. Here is a summary of the Prakarana, TD 26, p. 702a8 - p. 711b5:
How many of the twenty-eight anusayas belong to Kamadhatu? . . . How many are abandoned though Seeing? . . . How many of the thirty-eight anuiayas of Kamadhatu are abandoned through Seeing? . . . How many through the Seeing of Suffering?
What is the meaning of the word anusaya} It signifies anu, anusayana, anusanga, anubandha {Kosa, v. 39). The anusaya which is not abandoned, not perfectly known (parijnd) "becomes active and grows" (anusete, glossed in the Kola by pratispbdm labhate, puspim labhate) by reason of two things: its object (dlambana), and the dharmas associated (samprayoga) with it. It "becomes active" in the Dhatu to which it belongs, not in another (v. 18).
There are twelve anufayas: kdmardganusaya, pratigha, ruparaga, drupyardga, mdna, avidyd, satkdyadrsti, antagrdhadrsti, mitbyddrsti, drspipardmar/a, silvaratapardmarsa, and vicikitsdnufaya.
How does kamardgdnusaya "become active? " By reason of the agreeable, of the pleasant . . . How so pratigha? By reason of the disagreeable . . . How so ruparaga? By reason of the agreeable . . . How so mdna? . . .
Why is kamardgdnusaya produced? For three reasons: 1. Kamardgdnusaya is not abandoned or completely known; 2. some dharmas favorable to an explosion (paryavas- thdna) of the kdmaraga present themselves; and 3. there is incorrect judgment (ayonisomanasikdra) . . . (v. 34).
These twelve anusayas make seven (by counting ruparaga and drupyardga under the name of bbavaraga; by counting the five drspis under the name of drspyanuiaya). . .
These seven anusayas make ninety-eight (by counting all of the categories of kdmaraga as categories of kdmardgdnufayas to be expelled through the Seeing of Suffering, etc. )
How many of the ninety-eight are universal (sarvatraga), how many are non-universal (v. 17)? [Twenty-seven are universal; sixty-five are non-universal; and six are both. . . ] (p. 702c7). How many have impure things for their object (sdsravdlambana) (v. 18) (p. 703a 16), how many have conditioned things (samskrtdlambana) (p. 703b5) for their object?
How many "become active and grow" (anusete, see v. 17) from their object? from associated dharmas? from their object and from associated dharmas? from neither the one or the other? [The examination of this problem fills many pages, 702b22-711b5: How many "become active and grow" from the fact of the object; etc. , from the dharmas abandoned through the Seeing of Suffering? . . . from thoughts abandoned through the Seeing of Suffering? . . . from thoughts associated with a false view abandoned through the Seeing of Extinction? . . . from an avidyd abandoned by the Seeing of Extinction? . . . from an avidyd with a false view abandoned by the Seeing of Extinction? . . . ]
Footnotes 871
? 872 Chapter Eive
22. Some*notes on the abandoning (prahdna) of the defilements according to the Pali sources (see vi. l):
1) Majjhima, i. 7, distinguishes the dsavas abandoned through dassana, samvara, patisevana, adhivdsana, parwajjana, vinodana and bhavand.
2) According to the Dhammasangani the three errors of satkdyadrsti, vicikitsd and iilvratapardmarsa, along with the defilements (rdga, etc. ) which reside in these three errors, are abandoned through Seeing, along with the sensations, ideas, etc. , which are associated with them, and with the actions which they produce (1002-1--6); all of the rest of the rdgas, dvesas, mohas, with their associated defilements, sensations, and actions, are abandoned through cultivation or Meditation (1007). The causes (hetu) of the first group are abandoned through Seeing, whereas the causes of the second are abandoned through Meditation (1010-1011). Good (kusala) things, physical matter (rupa) and unconditioned
things (asamkhatd dhdtu) cannot be abandoned. Compare Koia, i. 40.
3) Kathdvatthu, i. 4, presents the thesis of a gradual abandoning of the defilements
through the successive Seeing of the Truths of Suffering, etc.
4) Atthasdlini, p. 234, anusayapajahana through the path of Sotaapanna and Arhat; p.
376, the abandoning of the samyojanas through the four Paths (See the table set up by Mrs Rhys Davids, Psychology, p. 303).
5) Visuddhimagga, p. 570 (Warren, p. 193), the order of the abandoning (pahdnak- kama) of the upadanas: the last three are abandoned by the Sotaapanna; the first (kdmupdddna) by the Arhat; p. 684-6, by which the nana (of Sotaapanna, etc. ) are the different samyojanas, kilesas to be killed (vajjha = vadhya of the Kosa, v . 6 ) . . . upadanas, (seven) anusayas, malas, kammapathas, etc. ; ditthivicikitsd by the n"dna of the Sotaapanna, kdmardga and patigha by the nana of the Anagamin, and mana, bhavardga, and avidya by the nana of the Arhat.
6) Many types of p rah ana are named and defined in the Atthasdlinip. 351, and in the Sumangalavildsini, p. 20, which are not totally in agreement.
The Sumangalavildsinisays that, through Vinaya, one obtains morality (sila), thus vitikkamappahdna, the abandoning of the outflowing of the defilements, that is, the abandoning of transgressions: for morality is opposed (patipakkha) to the vitikkama of the kilesas; it is opposed to the outflowing of the defilements and their manifestation through actions. Thisabandoningisalsocalledtadangappahdna, "partialabandoning. "Forthe Atthasdlini, tadangappahdna is the abandoning of a certain defilement or error (belief in an atman, belief in a bad path, in eternity, in annihilation; to not see as dangerous that which is dangerous, etc. ) through the Seeing of the composite character of the self, through the Seeing of the Path, etc. Maung Tin translates: "elimination of the factor in question. " Through Sutra, one obtains absorption and, as a consequence, pariyutthdnapahdna or vikkhambhanapahana, the (temporary) abandoning of the explosion or the manifestation of the defilements; an abandoning which consists of the fact of hindering, of conquering the defilements (Mahdvyutpatti, 130. 5).
Through Abhidharma, one obtains patina, and, as a consequence anusayapahdna or samucchedappahdna, the abandoning of the seeds of the defilements, an abandoning which consists of the definitive destruction (samuccheda) of the defilements.
23. The two Paths, the Path of Seeing, and Path of Meditation, are explained in Koia, vi. l, 26, 49.
24. For example, the view of negation (ndstidrsti) or mithyadrsti, when it consists of negating the Truth of Suffering, constitutes an anusaya abandoned through the Seeing of Suffering.
25. See vi. 28, note.
26. Burnouf (Introduction, 263) explains: "the opinion that the body is what exists, that is, that it is the self which solely exists. " Childers, according to his correspondent Subhuti,
? explains sakkdya = sakdya = svakdya (as we have anuddayd - anudayd, etc. , MuUer, Simplified Grammar, p. 19). We thus have: sakkdyadrsti = the theory of one's body, the theory that the body is personal (Mrs Rhys Davids, Psychology, p. 257, quotes the Suttanipdta, 950, 951 with respect to this). See Vibhdsd quoted note 28. E. Senart holds to satkdrya (Melanges Harlez, p. 292). Walleser, ZDMG. 64, 581, gives svat-kdya.
Atthasdlini, p. 348: sakkayaditthiti vijjamdnatthena sati khandhapancakasankhdte kdye sayam vdsati tasmin kdye dipthiti. Expositor, p. 450: a view arising with respect to the body in the sense of existing, and called the five aggregates, or, itself appearing as the view arising with respect to the body (? ? ).
Madhyamakdvatdra, vi. 120, 144 (p. 282 and 311 of the translation, Muse'on, 1911): Dhammasangani, 1003.
Sakkdya = paficupdddnakkhandhd, Majjhima, i. 299. Satkdyadrssti is not "bad," Koia, iv. l2d, v. 19.
27. As is shown by Hsiian-tsang's version and by other sources, Vasubandhu here presents the explanation of the Sautrantikas. It is on this etymology that the Tibetan version rests: 'jig tshogs la Ita ba - "a view of the collection of that which perishes. " We shall see below how sat = 'jig = huai ^ ' = to perish, to deteriorate = mieh %$ (Paramartha).
Hsuan-tsang: "To believe in the self and in things pertaiping to a self is the sat-kd-ya :
view. We have sat because it perishes (huai j j ); collection is what is called kd-ya: that is, "collection of impermanent things. " Kd-ya is sat, from whence sat-kdya. This sat-kdya is the five updddnaskandhas. Th. is expression is used in order to avoid the idea of permanence and of unity, for it is by reason of these two ideas that there is a belief in a self. The Vaibhasikas explain: because it exists (yu % ), it is sat; the sense of "body" (kayo) is as above. One says that this view rests on the "existing body" in order to avoid the idea that the idea of self and of things pertaining to a self does not have an object [gloss of the Japanese editor: a refutation of the Sautrantikas], This view is called sat-kdya because it is produced by reason of sat-kdya. "
Commentary of the Vijnaptimatra School: "The Sautrantikas say that sat signifies "false,
=
deceiving" (wei ff? ); ka-ya - "body;" ta-li-se-chih ^fflWzSfc
"accumulation," and is a metaphoric expression for accumulation; the view produced by reason of body-accumulation is the "false-body-view. " The Buddha refutes the future Sarvastivadin doctrine that the name is "existent-body-view;" consequently he says the word sat, "to deceive" (sa wei jUm ). This same word sat signifies "existent;" but here it signifies "false" according to the etymology sidantiti sad iti [Reading of S. Le'vi].
Samghabhadra (TD 29, p. 605cl5)explains: "By the force of cause (hetu, doubtless sabhdgahetu, see ii. 52a trans, page 262) and the teachings, some fools recognize a "self" and "things pertaining to a self in the five updddnaskandhas. . This view is called satkdyadrsti. Sat because it exists; collection (chii 'fj| = rdsi, etc. ) is called kdya: the sense is samavdya (ho-ho fP'n' ), or dcaya (chi-chil fltfft ). Kdya is sat, thus satkdya. The sense is that of real existence and of multiplicity. This view admits the existence of a "self": now the self does not exist. One designates the object of this view by the word sat in order to avoid the idea that this view arises having a non-existent thing for its object; and in the fear that, as a consequence, there would be a belief in the reality of the "self," this object is designated by the word kdya. Th2it is: Those who believe in a "self as a unique entity, a "self either in a series (=the series of minds, cittasamtati), or in many series (=series of minds and mental states, series of mental elements): now these series are not a "self," because the kdya is a multiplicity. As this view of "self" has satkdya for its object, it is called satkdyadrsti; the meaning is that this view has for its object the five updddnaskandhas. In fact the Sutra says, "What all the Brahmins and monks who believe in a self, really have in view are the five updddnaskandhas. "The Blessed One gives the name of satkdyadrsti to one single view of "self and of "things pertaining to a self", so that one will not believe that the consciousness has a non-existent thing for its object (since the "self" does not exist), nor that the "self" exists (since the consciousness had for its object an existent thing and not a non-existent
Footnotes 873
"view;" "body" signifies
? 874 Chapter Five
thing). The Sautrantika (that is, Vasubandhu) gives the following explanation: "We have sat because it perishes; collection {chil) is what is termed kdya, that is, 'a collection of impermanent things/ Kdya is sat, thus satkdya. This satkdya is the five updddnaskandhas. - This expression is used in order to avoid the idea of permanence and unity, for it is by reason of these two ideas that there is a belief in self. " But what good is there in adding the word sat (with the meaning of "perishable")? The word kdya suffices to avoid the idea of permanence. If sat signifies perishable, one should simply say kdyadrsti: there is no dharma which is eternal and susceptible of forming a collection. Thus what value is there in qualifying kdya by a word signifying perishable?
28. Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 255a21:This view, having satkdya (yu-shen ^f ^ ) for its sphere (satkdye pravartata iti), is called satkdyadrsti.
Question: Are there other views that have satkdya for their spheres, not asatkdya, and which are called satkdyadrsts?
Other views have svakdya for their sphere, or parakdya, or satkdya, or asatkdya; thus they are not called satkdyadfspi. They have the svakdya for their sphere, that is, their own sphere (dhdtu) and stage (bhumi) for their object; or they have parakdya for their sphere, that is, another sphere, another stage. They have satkdya for their sphere, that is, the impure . . . This view, which has satkdya for its sphere, believes in a "self" and in "things pertaining to a self": thus it is called satkdyadfsti. Even though they have satkdya for their sphere, the others do not believe in a "self" or in "things pertaining to a self": thus they are not called satkdyadrsti. . . Vasumitra says: This view is called satkdyadrsti because it has only svakdya for its sphere; the five updddnaskandhas are called svakdya.
29. Samyukta, TD 2, p. 151a22; Madhyama, TD 1, p. 788al9; Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 38al4; KoU, trans, by Hsiian-tsang, TD 29, p. 154c; Samyutta, iii. 46: ye keci bhikkhave samand vd anekavidham attdnam samanupassamdnd samanupassanti sabbe te paflcupdddnakkhandhe samanupassanti etesam vd annataram.
30. See Kosa, iv. 66a, 78b, 79c, 96; Dhammasangani, Para. 381, etc.
31. How is the view of annihilation, ucchedadrssti, a view of affirmation? Here the author
speaks in general (Vydkhya*).
32. Omitted by Hsiian-tsang. Samghabhadra explains: drstyddindm updddnaskandhdndm paratvena pradhdnatvendmarso drstipardmarsa iti / parasabdaprayogena cayam atisayartho labhyata iti.
33. Silavrata is included in rupaskandha; one should add ddi in order to mention the other skandhas. On silavrata, see iv. 64c, v. 38a-c; Suttanipdta, p. 108; Mahdniddesa, 66-68, 88-90, 310, 416; Dhammasangani, 1006; Atthasdlini, 355; Huber, Sutrdlamkdra, p. 125, 127, 130.
34. On the Lord, the creator of the world, see ii. 64d (trans, page 306), Anguttara, i. 173, Majjhima, ii. 227, Digha, i. 18 (Brahm? ).
35. Vydkhya: tad idam dearyena samiaydvastham krtam na svamatam darsitam / anye yogdcdramatim apeksyaivam krtam. Y nhomitra. reproduces the explanation of someone (kahit) whorefutestheobjectionofatiprasanga(p. 780,line1)andthatofSamghabhadra; he presents the system of the Yogacarins: according to the Yogacarins, there are one hundred and twenty-eight kleias otanuiayas. In Kamadhatu forty are expelled through the Seeing of the Truths (each of the ten is expelled by each Truth); six are expelled through Meditation, namely akalpikd satkdyadrsti (spontaneous, not philosophical, belief in a self), ucchedadrsti, sahaja rdga (innate lust), pratigha, mdna and avidyd; the same, with the
exception of the five pratighas, in each of the two higher Dhatus.
The Abhisamaydlamkdrdloka (fol. 120 of my MSS) gives the same total: expelled
through Seeing, one hundred and twelve (forty, thirty-six and thirty-six according to Dhatu); expelled through Meditation, six, five and five: rdga, dvesa, mdna, avidyd, satkdyadrsti and antagrdhadrsti (dvesa is absent in the higher Dhatus). See vi. l.
? I know of the one hundred and eight kle/as only through the note of Przyluski, Acoka, page 323.
36. On the viparydsas, Anguttara, ii. 52; Nettippakarana, passim (vipalldsa), Vibhanga, 376 (viparyesa); compare Samyutta, i. 188, Dhammasangani, vipariyesagdha and the note of Atthasdlini, page 253; Siksdsamuccaya, 198. 11; Friendly Epistle, 48, YogasUtra, ii. 5 (definition of avidyd).
yj. Mahdsamgitidharmaparyayd; Anguttara, ii. 52 {vipalldsa); Vibhanga, 376 (saftfid, citta, diffivipariyesa); Visuddhimagga, 683.
38. Nikdydntariydh. According to Vibhdsd, below, the Vibhajyavadins. Hsiian-tsang: "Some other masters. . . "
Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 536c8: "Some others say that, among the twelve errors (viparydsa), eight are solely abandoned through the Seeing of the Truths, and four, also through Meditation. These masters are the Vibhajyavadins. " On the Vibhajyavadins, see P'u-kuang, TD 41, p. 310b23: "They say that there is no formal opinion which is completely correct (Jei chin li ^lj? 3? ), that [the past and the future] exist in part, do not exist in part, and
that one should distinguish the two: thus they are called 'the school of those who speak after m
having distinguished' (fen pieh shou pu ^S'JIJfB )>> Sanskrit: Vibhajyavadins. " According to the Vij&aptimdtravrtti (wei shih shu ^MM,! )> iv. 35. 10: "Those who are called Vibhajyavadins are now the Prajnaptivadins (shuo chia pu WiWfiS* ). "
According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (tsung lun ^|jfe ): "Two hundred years later there emerged a school from out of the Mahasamghikas called the Prajnaptivadins" (see Wassiliev page 251, and the note where we see that, in this version of the Samayabheda, one of the two Chinese translators here reads Vibhajyavadins). A commentator remarks: "According to these two explanations, the Vibhajyavadins form but a single school [with the Prajnaptivadins]. But the Vibhdsd, 23. 5 says: "The Mahasamghi- kas, etc. , are called Vibhajyavadins. " So too the Arthapradipa (? i-teng^^St )? "Either the Vibhajyavadins are certain masters of the Great Vehicle, or all the schools of the Small Vehicle are called Vibhajyavadins: these latter are not a definite school. Also, in the Samgraha (? she-lun Jlffe ), the Vibhajyavadins are strictly defined as being the MahiSasakas: in the Vibhdsd, they are strictly defined as being the Sammitiyas" (Note of Saeki ad xix. 9a9).
Note the classic references to the Vibhajyavadins, Commentary on the Kathdvatthu, Vasumitra, etc. , in Kern, Wassilief, Waters, etc. See v. 25.
39. "Seeing" (pafyati) designates the consciousness obtained through dnantaryamdrga; "knowing" (jdndti), the consciousness obtained through vimuktimdrga (vi. 28).
40. The Blessed One said:. . . srutavata dryasrdvakasya smrtisampramosd utpadyante / atha ca punah ksipram evdstam pariksyam parydddnam ca gacchanti.
41. According to the Tibetan: "Others say:. . . "According to the the Japanese editor: "Here theauthorcriticizestheVaibhasikas . . . "
42. The Tibetan only gives the first line of the stanza, but quoted completely by Hsiian-tsang. This is Samyutta, i. 188; Theragdthd, 1223; Visuddhimagga, page 37-38.
Footnotes 869
? 870 Chapter Five
describe all the defilements in an active state: "his paryavasthana of affection disappears in order to make room for the paryavasthana of hatred. " Childers: Mdrena pariyupphitacitto: having a mind possessed by Mara.
The distinction between paryavasthana and paryutthdna appears to be chiefly verbal: there is paryutthdna when a defilement rises {kun nas Idan ba: to arise, to expand, to explode); there is paryavasthana when a defilment surrounds {kun nas dkris pa). We have seen that rdgapariyupphita = rdgapateta {Anguttara, iii. 233). Some expressions of equivocal meaning are brought together in Anguttara, 166; kdmardga-vinivesa-vinibandha-paligedha- pariyupphdna-ajjhosdna.
10. According to Vasumitra (172a, Wassilief, p. 265), the Mahasamghikas say: "The anusayas are neither mind {citta) nor mental states {caitta). They do not have an object {analambana, comp. Kofa, i. 34, ii. 34b). The anufayas are different from the paryavasthdnas {kun nas dkris pa): the first are disassociated from the mind {viprayukta), whereas the second are associated with the mind {samprayukta)" The Sarvastivadins (173b, Wassilieff, p. 274) say: "The anusayas are mental states, and are associated with the mind. All the anusayas are paryavasthana, but all paryavasthdnas are not anuiaya. "
According to Bhavya (180a, Rockhill, p. 188), the Ekavyavaharikas say: "Since the mind is pure in nature, one cannot say that the anusayas are associated with the mind or disassociated from the mind. The anusayas are different from paryutthdnas {kun nas Idan ba). " [See Mahdvyutpatti, 30. 9. 55; 109. 59. 57]. On the mind which is pure by nature, Anguttara, i. 10, Ko/a, vi. 77, Wassilieff, 265.
According to Nettippakarana, p. 79: "Former avidyd is the cause of later avidyd: former avidyd is anusaya of avidyd; later avidyd is the paryutthdna of avidyd. "
The Andhakas maintain: "Anufaya is different from pariyuppphdna"; an ordinary person's mind is good, but he does not however cease from being "endowed with anusaya" {sdnusaya); but one cannot say that he is pariyupthita, enveloped [by the defilements]. {Kathdvatthu, xiv. 5). The same Andhakas maintain that pariyupphdna is disassociated from the mind (xiv. 6).
The Andhakas and certain Uttarapathakas say that the anusayas do not have an object {andramana) (ix. 4); the Mahasamghikas and the Sammitiyas say that the anusayas are morally neutral, without causes, and disassociated from the mind (xi. l). Anusaya as distinct from pariyutthdna, Vibhanga, p. 383.
11. The objectors, according to the Vydkhyd, are the Vatslputriyas; according to the Japanese editor (=Kyokuga Saeki), the Mahasamghikas (See Vasumitra quoted note 10).
12. The anubandha of one defilement is the fact that it is favorable to the production of other defilements. We can also undestand anusaya in the sense of anuvrtti: "One abandons kdmardga together with its continuation. "
13. By metaphor, anus*aya = anuiayaprapti, a cause being designated by the name of its effect {upacdra); in its correct sense {mukhyavrtti), anuUya - paryavasthana.
14. This is the argumentation of Dharmottara, the author of Taisho no 1550 (Note of the Japanese editor).
eittaklesakaratvdd dvaranatvdc chubhair viruddharvdt // kusalasya copalambhdd aviprayuktd ihanusayah //
15. If an anusaya is disassociated from the mind, the anusaya is the "possession" of the defilement; now as long as a person is not definitively detached from the defilement, he keeps the "possession" of the defilement; thus he can never have a good mind.
? 16. On the theory of the seed (bija) and of its capacity (fakti), see ii. 36d (trans, pp. 211, 274); Chapter IX, trans. Stcherbatski, p. 947, Hsiian-tsang, xxx. l3b. On memory, Chapter IX, Stcherbatski, p. 852; xxx. 7a.
17. The Vatslputrlyas (Vyakbya) or the Mahasarhghikas (Japanese editor).
18. Reading of the Vydkbyd; according to the Tibetan version: ragdnuiayo'nuiete. Majjhima, iii. 285: so sukhdya vedandya putto samdno abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosayatipphati / tassa rdgdnusayo anuseti.
19. Quoted in the Vyakbya below ad 36a-b with the reading krtah.
20. Paramartha: " . . . these also make ten. "
21. The anu/ayas are ten on the basis of their natures. By taking into consideration the sphere to which they belong and their mode of expulsion (Seeing each of the Four Truths and Meditation), one obtains the number of ninety-eight. According to the Yogacaras, one hundred and eight, see v. 8; and below note 35.
Vasubandhu, faithful to his task, presents the system of the Abhidharma. Here is a summary of the Prakarana, TD 26, p. 702a8 - p. 711b5:
How many of the twenty-eight anusayas belong to Kamadhatu? . . . How many are abandoned though Seeing? . . . How many of the thirty-eight anuiayas of Kamadhatu are abandoned through Seeing? . . . How many through the Seeing of Suffering?
What is the meaning of the word anusaya} It signifies anu, anusayana, anusanga, anubandha {Kosa, v. 39). The anusaya which is not abandoned, not perfectly known (parijnd) "becomes active and grows" (anusete, glossed in the Kola by pratispbdm labhate, puspim labhate) by reason of two things: its object (dlambana), and the dharmas associated (samprayoga) with it. It "becomes active" in the Dhatu to which it belongs, not in another (v. 18).
There are twelve anufayas: kdmardganusaya, pratigha, ruparaga, drupyardga, mdna, avidyd, satkdyadrsti, antagrdhadrsti, mitbyddrsti, drspipardmar/a, silvaratapardmarsa, and vicikitsdnufaya.
How does kamardgdnusaya "become active? " By reason of the agreeable, of the pleasant . . . How so pratigha? By reason of the disagreeable . . . How so ruparaga? By reason of the agreeable . . . How so mdna? . . .
Why is kamardgdnusaya produced? For three reasons: 1. Kamardgdnusaya is not abandoned or completely known; 2. some dharmas favorable to an explosion (paryavas- thdna) of the kdmaraga present themselves; and 3. there is incorrect judgment (ayonisomanasikdra) . . . (v. 34).
These twelve anusayas make seven (by counting ruparaga and drupyardga under the name of bbavaraga; by counting the five drspis under the name of drspyanuiaya). . .
These seven anusayas make ninety-eight (by counting all of the categories of kdmaraga as categories of kdmardgdnufayas to be expelled through the Seeing of Suffering, etc. )
How many of the ninety-eight are universal (sarvatraga), how many are non-universal (v. 17)? [Twenty-seven are universal; sixty-five are non-universal; and six are both. . . ] (p. 702c7). How many have impure things for their object (sdsravdlambana) (v. 18) (p. 703a 16), how many have conditioned things (samskrtdlambana) (p. 703b5) for their object?
How many "become active and grow" (anusete, see v. 17) from their object? from associated dharmas? from their object and from associated dharmas? from neither the one or the other? [The examination of this problem fills many pages, 702b22-711b5: How many "become active and grow" from the fact of the object; etc. , from the dharmas abandoned through the Seeing of Suffering? . . . from thoughts abandoned through the Seeing of Suffering? . . . from thoughts associated with a false view abandoned through the Seeing of Extinction? . . . from an avidyd abandoned by the Seeing of Extinction? . . . from an avidyd with a false view abandoned by the Seeing of Extinction? . . . ]
Footnotes 871
? 872 Chapter Eive
22. Some*notes on the abandoning (prahdna) of the defilements according to the Pali sources (see vi. l):
1) Majjhima, i. 7, distinguishes the dsavas abandoned through dassana, samvara, patisevana, adhivdsana, parwajjana, vinodana and bhavand.
2) According to the Dhammasangani the three errors of satkdyadrsti, vicikitsd and iilvratapardmarsa, along with the defilements (rdga, etc. ) which reside in these three errors, are abandoned through Seeing, along with the sensations, ideas, etc. , which are associated with them, and with the actions which they produce (1002-1--6); all of the rest of the rdgas, dvesas, mohas, with their associated defilements, sensations, and actions, are abandoned through cultivation or Meditation (1007). The causes (hetu) of the first group are abandoned through Seeing, whereas the causes of the second are abandoned through Meditation (1010-1011). Good (kusala) things, physical matter (rupa) and unconditioned
things (asamkhatd dhdtu) cannot be abandoned. Compare Koia, i. 40.
3) Kathdvatthu, i. 4, presents the thesis of a gradual abandoning of the defilements
through the successive Seeing of the Truths of Suffering, etc.
4) Atthasdlini, p. 234, anusayapajahana through the path of Sotaapanna and Arhat; p.
376, the abandoning of the samyojanas through the four Paths (See the table set up by Mrs Rhys Davids, Psychology, p. 303).
5) Visuddhimagga, p. 570 (Warren, p. 193), the order of the abandoning (pahdnak- kama) of the upadanas: the last three are abandoned by the Sotaapanna; the first (kdmupdddna) by the Arhat; p. 684-6, by which the nana (of Sotaapanna, etc. ) are the different samyojanas, kilesas to be killed (vajjha = vadhya of the Kosa, v . 6 ) . . . upadanas, (seven) anusayas, malas, kammapathas, etc. ; ditthivicikitsd by the n"dna of the Sotaapanna, kdmardga and patigha by the nana of the Anagamin, and mana, bhavardga, and avidya by the nana of the Arhat.
6) Many types of p rah ana are named and defined in the Atthasdlinip. 351, and in the Sumangalavildsini, p. 20, which are not totally in agreement.
The Sumangalavildsinisays that, through Vinaya, one obtains morality (sila), thus vitikkamappahdna, the abandoning of the outflowing of the defilements, that is, the abandoning of transgressions: for morality is opposed (patipakkha) to the vitikkama of the kilesas; it is opposed to the outflowing of the defilements and their manifestation through actions. Thisabandoningisalsocalledtadangappahdna, "partialabandoning. "Forthe Atthasdlini, tadangappahdna is the abandoning of a certain defilement or error (belief in an atman, belief in a bad path, in eternity, in annihilation; to not see as dangerous that which is dangerous, etc. ) through the Seeing of the composite character of the self, through the Seeing of the Path, etc. Maung Tin translates: "elimination of the factor in question. " Through Sutra, one obtains absorption and, as a consequence, pariyutthdnapahdna or vikkhambhanapahana, the (temporary) abandoning of the explosion or the manifestation of the defilements; an abandoning which consists of the fact of hindering, of conquering the defilements (Mahdvyutpatti, 130. 5).
Through Abhidharma, one obtains patina, and, as a consequence anusayapahdna or samucchedappahdna, the abandoning of the seeds of the defilements, an abandoning which consists of the definitive destruction (samuccheda) of the defilements.
23. The two Paths, the Path of Seeing, and Path of Meditation, are explained in Koia, vi. l, 26, 49.
24. For example, the view of negation (ndstidrsti) or mithyadrsti, when it consists of negating the Truth of Suffering, constitutes an anusaya abandoned through the Seeing of Suffering.
25. See vi. 28, note.
26. Burnouf (Introduction, 263) explains: "the opinion that the body is what exists, that is, that it is the self which solely exists. " Childers, according to his correspondent Subhuti,
? explains sakkdya = sakdya = svakdya (as we have anuddayd - anudayd, etc. , MuUer, Simplified Grammar, p. 19). We thus have: sakkdyadrsti = the theory of one's body, the theory that the body is personal (Mrs Rhys Davids, Psychology, p. 257, quotes the Suttanipdta, 950, 951 with respect to this). See Vibhdsd quoted note 28. E. Senart holds to satkdrya (Melanges Harlez, p. 292). Walleser, ZDMG. 64, 581, gives svat-kdya.
Atthasdlini, p. 348: sakkayaditthiti vijjamdnatthena sati khandhapancakasankhdte kdye sayam vdsati tasmin kdye dipthiti. Expositor, p. 450: a view arising with respect to the body in the sense of existing, and called the five aggregates, or, itself appearing as the view arising with respect to the body (? ? ).
Madhyamakdvatdra, vi. 120, 144 (p. 282 and 311 of the translation, Muse'on, 1911): Dhammasangani, 1003.
Sakkdya = paficupdddnakkhandhd, Majjhima, i. 299. Satkdyadrssti is not "bad," Koia, iv. l2d, v. 19.
27. As is shown by Hsiian-tsang's version and by other sources, Vasubandhu here presents the explanation of the Sautrantikas. It is on this etymology that the Tibetan version rests: 'jig tshogs la Ita ba - "a view of the collection of that which perishes. " We shall see below how sat = 'jig = huai ^ ' = to perish, to deteriorate = mieh %$ (Paramartha).
Hsuan-tsang: "To believe in the self and in things pertaiping to a self is the sat-kd-ya :
view. We have sat because it perishes (huai j j ); collection is what is called kd-ya: that is, "collection of impermanent things. " Kd-ya is sat, from whence sat-kdya. This sat-kdya is the five updddnaskandhas. Th. is expression is used in order to avoid the idea of permanence and of unity, for it is by reason of these two ideas that there is a belief in a self. The Vaibhasikas explain: because it exists (yu % ), it is sat; the sense of "body" (kayo) is as above. One says that this view rests on the "existing body" in order to avoid the idea that the idea of self and of things pertaining to a self does not have an object [gloss of the Japanese editor: a refutation of the Sautrantikas], This view is called sat-kdya because it is produced by reason of sat-kdya. "
Commentary of the Vijnaptimatra School: "The Sautrantikas say that sat signifies "false,
=
deceiving" (wei ff? ); ka-ya - "body;" ta-li-se-chih ^fflWzSfc
"accumulation," and is a metaphoric expression for accumulation; the view produced by reason of body-accumulation is the "false-body-view. " The Buddha refutes the future Sarvastivadin doctrine that the name is "existent-body-view;" consequently he says the word sat, "to deceive" (sa wei jUm ). This same word sat signifies "existent;" but here it signifies "false" according to the etymology sidantiti sad iti [Reading of S. Le'vi].
Samghabhadra (TD 29, p. 605cl5)explains: "By the force of cause (hetu, doubtless sabhdgahetu, see ii. 52a trans, page 262) and the teachings, some fools recognize a "self" and "things pertaining to a self in the five updddnaskandhas. . This view is called satkdyadrsti. Sat because it exists; collection (chii 'fj| = rdsi, etc. ) is called kdya: the sense is samavdya (ho-ho fP'n' ), or dcaya (chi-chil fltfft ). Kdya is sat, thus satkdya. The sense is that of real existence and of multiplicity. This view admits the existence of a "self": now the self does not exist. One designates the object of this view by the word sat in order to avoid the idea that this view arises having a non-existent thing for its object; and in the fear that, as a consequence, there would be a belief in the reality of the "self," this object is designated by the word kdya. Th2it is: Those who believe in a "self as a unique entity, a "self either in a series (=the series of minds, cittasamtati), or in many series (=series of minds and mental states, series of mental elements): now these series are not a "self," because the kdya is a multiplicity. As this view of "self" has satkdya for its object, it is called satkdyadrsti; the meaning is that this view has for its object the five updddnaskandhas. In fact the Sutra says, "What all the Brahmins and monks who believe in a self, really have in view are the five updddnaskandhas. "The Blessed One gives the name of satkdyadrsti to one single view of "self and of "things pertaining to a self", so that one will not believe that the consciousness has a non-existent thing for its object (since the "self" does not exist), nor that the "self" exists (since the consciousness had for its object an existent thing and not a non-existent
Footnotes 873
"view;" "body" signifies
? 874 Chapter Five
thing). The Sautrantika (that is, Vasubandhu) gives the following explanation: "We have sat because it perishes; collection {chil) is what is termed kdya, that is, 'a collection of impermanent things/ Kdya is sat, thus satkdya. This satkdya is the five updddnaskandhas. - This expression is used in order to avoid the idea of permanence and unity, for it is by reason of these two ideas that there is a belief in self. " But what good is there in adding the word sat (with the meaning of "perishable")? The word kdya suffices to avoid the idea of permanence. If sat signifies perishable, one should simply say kdyadrsti: there is no dharma which is eternal and susceptible of forming a collection. Thus what value is there in qualifying kdya by a word signifying perishable?
28. Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 255a21:This view, having satkdya (yu-shen ^f ^ ) for its sphere (satkdye pravartata iti), is called satkdyadrsti.
Question: Are there other views that have satkdya for their spheres, not asatkdya, and which are called satkdyadrsts?
Other views have svakdya for their sphere, or parakdya, or satkdya, or asatkdya; thus they are not called satkdyadfspi. They have the svakdya for their sphere, that is, their own sphere (dhdtu) and stage (bhumi) for their object; or they have parakdya for their sphere, that is, another sphere, another stage. They have satkdya for their sphere, that is, the impure . . . This view, which has satkdya for its sphere, believes in a "self" and in "things pertaining to a self": thus it is called satkdyadfsti. Even though they have satkdya for their sphere, the others do not believe in a "self" or in "things pertaining to a self": thus they are not called satkdyadrsti. . . Vasumitra says: This view is called satkdyadrsti because it has only svakdya for its sphere; the five updddnaskandhas are called svakdya.
29. Samyukta, TD 2, p. 151a22; Madhyama, TD 1, p. 788al9; Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 38al4; KoU, trans, by Hsiian-tsang, TD 29, p. 154c; Samyutta, iii. 46: ye keci bhikkhave samand vd anekavidham attdnam samanupassamdnd samanupassanti sabbe te paflcupdddnakkhandhe samanupassanti etesam vd annataram.
30. See Kosa, iv. 66a, 78b, 79c, 96; Dhammasangani, Para. 381, etc.
31. How is the view of annihilation, ucchedadrssti, a view of affirmation? Here the author
speaks in general (Vydkhya*).
32. Omitted by Hsiian-tsang. Samghabhadra explains: drstyddindm updddnaskandhdndm paratvena pradhdnatvendmarso drstipardmarsa iti / parasabdaprayogena cayam atisayartho labhyata iti.
33. Silavrata is included in rupaskandha; one should add ddi in order to mention the other skandhas. On silavrata, see iv. 64c, v. 38a-c; Suttanipdta, p. 108; Mahdniddesa, 66-68, 88-90, 310, 416; Dhammasangani, 1006; Atthasdlini, 355; Huber, Sutrdlamkdra, p. 125, 127, 130.
34. On the Lord, the creator of the world, see ii. 64d (trans, page 306), Anguttara, i. 173, Majjhima, ii. 227, Digha, i. 18 (Brahm? ).
35. Vydkhya: tad idam dearyena samiaydvastham krtam na svamatam darsitam / anye yogdcdramatim apeksyaivam krtam. Y nhomitra. reproduces the explanation of someone (kahit) whorefutestheobjectionofatiprasanga(p. 780,line1)andthatofSamghabhadra; he presents the system of the Yogacarins: according to the Yogacarins, there are one hundred and twenty-eight kleias otanuiayas. In Kamadhatu forty are expelled through the Seeing of the Truths (each of the ten is expelled by each Truth); six are expelled through Meditation, namely akalpikd satkdyadrsti (spontaneous, not philosophical, belief in a self), ucchedadrsti, sahaja rdga (innate lust), pratigha, mdna and avidyd; the same, with the
exception of the five pratighas, in each of the two higher Dhatus.
The Abhisamaydlamkdrdloka (fol. 120 of my MSS) gives the same total: expelled
through Seeing, one hundred and twelve (forty, thirty-six and thirty-six according to Dhatu); expelled through Meditation, six, five and five: rdga, dvesa, mdna, avidyd, satkdyadrsti and antagrdhadrsti (dvesa is absent in the higher Dhatus). See vi. l.
? I know of the one hundred and eight kle/as only through the note of Przyluski, Acoka, page 323.
36. On the viparydsas, Anguttara, ii. 52; Nettippakarana, passim (vipalldsa), Vibhanga, 376 (viparyesa); compare Samyutta, i. 188, Dhammasangani, vipariyesagdha and the note of Atthasdlini, page 253; Siksdsamuccaya, 198. 11; Friendly Epistle, 48, YogasUtra, ii. 5 (definition of avidyd).
yj. Mahdsamgitidharmaparyayd; Anguttara, ii. 52 {vipalldsa); Vibhanga, 376 (saftfid, citta, diffivipariyesa); Visuddhimagga, 683.
38. Nikdydntariydh. According to Vibhdsd, below, the Vibhajyavadins. Hsiian-tsang: "Some other masters. . . "
Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 536c8: "Some others say that, among the twelve errors (viparydsa), eight are solely abandoned through the Seeing of the Truths, and four, also through Meditation. These masters are the Vibhajyavadins. " On the Vibhajyavadins, see P'u-kuang, TD 41, p. 310b23: "They say that there is no formal opinion which is completely correct (Jei chin li ^lj? 3? ), that [the past and the future] exist in part, do not exist in part, and
that one should distinguish the two: thus they are called 'the school of those who speak after m
having distinguished' (fen pieh shou pu ^S'JIJfB )>> Sanskrit: Vibhajyavadins. " According to the Vij&aptimdtravrtti (wei shih shu ^MM,! )> iv. 35. 10: "Those who are called Vibhajyavadins are now the Prajnaptivadins (shuo chia pu WiWfiS* ). "
According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (tsung lun ^|jfe ): "Two hundred years later there emerged a school from out of the Mahasamghikas called the Prajnaptivadins" (see Wassiliev page 251, and the note where we see that, in this version of the Samayabheda, one of the two Chinese translators here reads Vibhajyavadins). A commentator remarks: "According to these two explanations, the Vibhajyavadins form but a single school [with the Prajnaptivadins]. But the Vibhdsd, 23. 5 says: "The Mahasamghi- kas, etc. , are called Vibhajyavadins. " So too the Arthapradipa (? i-teng^^St )? "Either the Vibhajyavadins are certain masters of the Great Vehicle, or all the schools of the Small Vehicle are called Vibhajyavadins: these latter are not a definite school. Also, in the Samgraha (? she-lun Jlffe ), the Vibhajyavadins are strictly defined as being the MahiSasakas: in the Vibhdsd, they are strictly defined as being the Sammitiyas" (Note of Saeki ad xix. 9a9).
Note the classic references to the Vibhajyavadins, Commentary on the Kathdvatthu, Vasumitra, etc. , in Kern, Wassilief, Waters, etc. See v. 25.
39. "Seeing" (pafyati) designates the consciousness obtained through dnantaryamdrga; "knowing" (jdndti), the consciousness obtained through vimuktimdrga (vi. 28).
40. The Blessed One said:. . . srutavata dryasrdvakasya smrtisampramosd utpadyante / atha ca punah ksipram evdstam pariksyam parydddnam ca gacchanti.
41. According to the Tibetan: "Others say:. . . "According to the the Japanese editor: "Here theauthorcriticizestheVaibhasikas . . . "
42. The Tibetan only gives the first line of the stanza, but quoted completely by Hsiian-tsang. This is Samyutta, i. 188; Theragdthd, 1223; Visuddhimagga, page 37-38.
