---
title: "尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 · 1"
description: "尊婆须蜜菩萨所集论由古印度论师尊婆须蜜造，后秦时期僧伽跋澄等译师于符秦时代译成中文。该论属说一切有部重要论典，汇集佛陀弟子关于法相的问答与阐释，系统论述阿毗达摩体系中的名相、因果、修行次第等核心教义。其内容深刻融合经藏与论藏传统，反映了部派佛教时期的哲学思辨高峰。作为汉传阿毗达摩文献的早期代表作，该论对南北朝佛教义学发展影响深远，为研究部派佛教思想与中印佛教交流提供了关键文本依据。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcvroce90gwgl604ei483h15"
---
### 聚揵度首第一秦言地親也。自品首盡七品，名聚揵度
> Khandhaka Collection, Chapter One In Chinese, "land and relatives." From the beginning of this section through the seventh section is called the Khandhaka Collection.
十力哀出世， 覺知一切法，我今禮如來， 法及諸聖眾。最勝之善句， 諸賢聖聽聞，瞿曇大眾中， 有益眾生類。
> The Ten Powers, in compassion, appeared in the world, Awakened to know all dharmas. I now bow to the Tathagata, To the Dharma, and to the noble community. These words of the highest goodness— Let all the wise and noble ones hear them, In the great assembly of Gautama, For the benefit of all beings.
云何為色相？問：色相云何？答曰：如覺知諸法。云何覺知諸法？答曰：為有界想。為有勝耶？答曰：彼有一想。問：一想為有勝耶？答曰：一想之中著欲諸垢諸界所縛，終不縛者是故諸結則衰。問：如中諸結為有勝耶？答曰：當有還甘露。問：如中當還甘露為有勝耶？答曰：依生身意受諸苦惱緣亦不起，是故身意諸苦惱已過去。問：如中無色相。問：設無色相，色亦無相。答曰：若無色相，亦無彼色。色相亦無相，亦無淫色相。問：猶如汝無色相有色，如是我無色相亦無相，亦有色相耶？或作是說：漸漸興色相。問：一色中或興或不興，此義云何？或作是說：若色一時漸積，彼無色相。或作是說：漸漸分別色相，此亦如本所說。或作是說：攝統色相。問：過去未來色最別無教，便有無色。或作是說：攝繫色相。或作是說：及諸蓋色相。或作是說：壞敗色相。此亦過去未來所說。或作是說：色相有三種，可見有對、不可見有對、不可見無對。問：若諸色不可見無對，欲使彼無色相耶？或作是說：色相往來是謂色相。問：過去未來義不有異？或作是說：色相為色。或作是說：因四大義為色。世尊亦說四大，緣彼四大生色陰受盛。問：取要言之，彼則不說緣諸所有色。彼一切是四大、四大所造。答曰：此非取要。又作是說：緣更生諸痛陰。或作是說：汝問何色相？設青，青為色相；設黃，即彼色相也。問：我問一切色相。設彼是色，相相無勝？答曰？色不同一相，此中有何咎？設相相不同，此義不然。猶若地為堅相，如今地異、堅異。問：一切色同一相，猶如無常。問：自相無相，地為自相，是故不應作是說。問：我無自相，我問一切諸相。或作是說：有對色相，是色為色相，有對相者，猶如捻箭筈，是謂有色。如種穀子在地，隨時溉灌彼便有色。云何非色相？答曰：反上所說義。尊曇摩多羅說：諸物無對彼非色，是謂非色相。無對之物彼亦不生，是謂無對。猶如無對是對迹，彼便是無對。如是非色相，四大所造色有何等異？或作是說：無有異也，諸四大即是造色。問：如世尊言，諸所有色，彼一切是四大、四大所造耶。於此經有違。答曰：非所造聲更有餘根。如說六更樂，愚人所貪忍，苦樂行從此所興，樂以來於其中間，不出六更樂外更有七更樂也，亦無造者。問：若無造聲者，亦不變易。欲色是我所色，亦是我有耶？或作是說：堅濡熱動是四大相，猶如非地色從色造色。問：四大轉轉優劣，色不常作。欲使彼有造色耶？答曰：雖彼四大轉轉優劣得四大相，四大所興色非得四大相，彼非所興色。或作是說：諸緣彼四大、四大所興色。問四大亦因四大，欲使是興色耶？答曰：彼雖因四大，有若干所因，四大是興色相。問：色緣色相，色轉生色。答曰：云何得知色轉生色，復不緣四大耶？或作是說：有漏四大所興色，亦有漏亦無漏。問：諸有漏所造興色、彼四大有何差降？諸無漏所興色，何等四大造耶？或作是說：無記四大所興。復次所造色者，善、不善、無記。此亦如上所說。或作是說：依彼四大得興色。問：心心念法亦依四大，欲使彼是興色耶？答曰：依四大諸根，諸根亦依心心念法，是故彼不依四大。問：名色者展轉不相依。或作是說：增上四大，四大增上興色。問：是謂衰耗增上、是謂增上不生？猶如一切法展轉增上相生，是故彼不生。尊僧伽多羅說：四大大事興因緣生色。問：四大各各不相離，亦非大事興。此義云何？答曰：若得不離，或四大非色。如風種空流離、色種無香味，四大非色入色造。尊婆須蜜說：更樂亦是四大所興色也，如地色、地香、地味。尊曇摩多羅說：猶如微妙色四大得解，亦及餘色。是謂興色也。以何等故身識入細滑入？或是四大或非四大。或作是說：彼無因緣。如明識色，或青或非青，是謂身識入細滑入，或是四大或非四大。或作是說：謂四大相彼非一切從細滑得，四大相不同，濡堅相亦不同。麁細輕重寒飢渴，於彼細滑麁地所生，輕者火風所造、重者地所生、寒者水所造、飢渴火風所造。問：無有出地堅者。細滑麁是地處所，是謂有增。如地平正故曰細滑，如地不平正故曰堅麁也，是故無麁細滑。設麁細滑當成就者，一切常可得。如青色不可得，是故不成就。彼或有輕因、彼復有重，是故輕重不得成就。若成寒者，云何得生青蓮華？不於彼四大得，是故寒不成就。若火盛則飢、風為渴本。或作是說：一切身識細滑入，當言四大也。不離四大有身識也，四大轉增各各說。
> What is the characteristic of form? Question: What is the characteristic of form? Answer: It is like being aware of all dharmas. How is one aware of all dharmas? Answer: Because there is the perception of elements. Is there something superior? Answer: That has a single perception. Question: Is a single perception superior? Answer: Within a single perception, one is bound by the defilements of desire and by the elements; one who is never bound—for that person the fetters weaken. Question: In this way, are the fetters superior? Answer: There will be a return to the nectar of deathlessness. Question: In this way, is the return to the nectar of deathlessness superior? Answer: Relying on the born body and mind, one experiences all kinds of suffering, and its conditions do not arise; thus the sufferings of body and mind have already passed. Question: In this way there is no characteristic of form. Question: If there is no characteristic of form, then form also has no characteristic. Answer: If there is no characteristic of form, then there is no that form either. The characteristic of form is also without characteristic, and there is also no characteristic of sexual form. Question: Just as you say that without the characteristic of form there is form, so too do I say that without the characteristic of form there is also no characteristic, and yet there is the characteristic of form? Alternatively, it is said: gradually the characteristic of form arises. Question: Within one form, does it arise or not arise? What does this mean? Alternatively, it is said: if form accumulates gradually all at once, then it has no characteristic of form. Alternatively, it is said: one gradually distinguishes the characteristic of form; this too is as previously stated. Alternatively, it is said: one encompasses and governs the characteristic of form. Question: Past and future forms are most distinct and without instruction, and thus there is no form. Alternatively, it is said: one encompasses and binds the characteristic of form. Alternatively, it is said: together with the characteristics of the hindrances. Alternatively, it is said: the characteristic of form is perishable. This too is stated regarding past and future. Alternatively, it is said: the characteristic of form is of three kinds—visible and resistant, invisible and resistant, invisible and non-resistant. Question: If forms are invisible and non-resistant, do you want them to have no characteristic of form? Alternatively, it is said: the characteristic of form is coming and going—this is called the characteristic of form. Question: Do past and future meanings not differ? Alternatively, it is said: the characteristic of form is form. Alternatively, it is said: form is the meaning of the four great elements as cause. The World-Honored One also taught the four great elements; dependent on those four great elements, the aggregate of form is produced and received. Question: In brief, that does not teach dependent on all forms. All those are the four great elements and what is made by the four great elements. Answer: This is not brief. Again it is said: dependent on contact, the aggregates of feeling arise. Alternatively, it is said: What characteristic of form are you asking about? If blue, blue is the characteristic of form; if yellow, that itself is the characteristic of form. Question: I am asking about all characteristics of form. If that is form, are the characteristics not superior? Answer: Form is not the same as one characteristic—what fault is there in this? If characteristic and characteristic are not different, this makes no sense. Just as earth has the characteristic of hardness—but now earth is different and hardness is different. Question: All form is the same as one characteristic, just like impermanence. Question: A particular characteristic is without characteristic; earth is a particular characteristic, therefore one should not say this. Question: I have no particular characteristic; I am asking about all characteristics. Alternatively, it is said: there is the characteristic of resistant form; that form is the characteristic of form. The characteristic of resistance is like pressing an arrow's nock—this is called having form. Like sowing grain seeds in the earth, watering them in season—then they have form. How is it not the characteristic of form? Answer: The opposite of what was said above. Venerable Dharmatrāta said: Things that are non-resistant are not form—this is called the characteristic of non-form. Non-resistant things also do not arise—this is called non-resistance. Just as non-resistance is the trace of resistance, that itself is non-resistant. Thus the characteristic of non-form—what difference is there from form made by the four great elements? Alternatively, it is said: There is no difference; the four great elements themselves are made form. Question: As the World-Honored One said, all forms—are they all the four great elements and what is made by the four great elements? Here there is a contradiction with the scripture. Answer: The sound "made" does not have other faculties. As when it is said there are six contacts, which the foolish delight in and endure, and from which pleasant and painful experiences arise—pleasure comes from within them; there is no seventh contact beyond the six contacts, and there is also no maker. Question: If there is no sound of making, there is also no change. Is form that is desired "mine" and form that is "I have"? Alternatively, it is said: Hardness, moisture, heat, and motion are the characteristics of the four great elements, just as non-earth form is made from form. Question: The four great elements are mutually superior and inferior, and form is not always made. Do you want there to be made form? Answer: Although those four great elements are mutually superior and inferior and obtain the characteristics of the four great elements, the form produced by the four great elements does not obtain the characteristics of the four great elements—that is not the produced form. Alternatively, it is said: dependent on those four great elements, form is produced by the four great elements. Question: The four great elements are also caused by the four great elements—do you want this to be produced form? Answer: Although that is caused by the four great elements, there are various causes; the four great elements are the characteristic of produced form. Question: Form is the condition of the characteristic of form; form turns and produces form. Answer: How do you know that form turns and produces form and does not also depend on the four great elements? Alternatively, it is said: form produced by contaminated four great elements, and also contaminated and uncontaminated. Question: What difference is there among the four great elements regarding forms produced by contaminated things? What four great elements produce forms produced by uncontaminated things? Alternatively, it is said: produced by indeterminate four great elements. Furthermore, made form is wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate. This too is as stated above. Alternatively, it is said: dependent on those four great elements, form is obtained. Question: Mind, mental factors, and dharmas also depend on the four great elements—do you want them to be produced form? Answer: Faculties depend on the four great elements, and the faculties also depend on mind, mental factors, and dharmas; therefore they do not depend on the four great elements. Question: Name and form do not mutually depend. Alternatively, it is said: the four great elements are predominant, and form is produced by the predominance of the four great elements. Question: Is this the predominance of decay, or the predominance of non-arising? Just as all dharmas mutually predominate and produce one another, therefore that is non-arising. Venerable Saṅghatrāta said: The four great elements are the great matter; produced form arises from causes and conditions. Question: The four great elements are each not separate from one another, and they are also not produced by the great matter. What does this mean? Answer: If they are not separate, perhaps the four great elements are not form. Like the wind element flowing through space, and the form element without smell or taste—the four great elements are not form but enter into made form. Venerable Vasumitra said: Contact is also form produced by the four great elements, such as earth's form, earth's smell, earth's taste. Venerable Dharmatrāta said: Just as subtle form is understood through the four great elements, and also other forms—this is called produced form. For what reason does bodily consciousness enter the tactile sense? Is it the four great elements or not the four great elements? Alternatively, it is said: That has no cause or condition. Just as clear consciousness of form, whether blue or not blue—this is called bodily consciousness entering the tactile sense, whether it is the four great elements or not the four great elements. Alternatively, it is said: That which is the characteristic of the four great elements is not all obtained from the tactile. The characteristics of the four great elements are not the same; the characteristics of moisture and hardness are also not the same. Coarse and fine, light and heavy, cold, hunger, and thirst—regarding these, the tactile and coarse are produced from earth; lightness is made by fire and wind; heaviness is produced from earth; cold is made by water; hunger and thirst are made by fire and wind. Question: There is nothing apart from earth's hardness. Coarse and fine tactile is the location of earth—this is called having increase. Just as when the earth is level and even it is called fine and smooth, and when the earth is not level and even it is called hard and coarse—therefore there is no coarse or fine tactile. If coarse and fine tactile were accomplished, all would always be obtainable. Just as blue color is not obtainable, therefore it is not accomplished. That may have a light cause, and it also has heaviness; therefore lightness and heaviness are not accomplished. If cold were accomplished, how could blue lotuses arise? It is not obtained from those four great elements; therefore cold is not accomplished. If fire is excessive, there is hunger; wind is the root of thirst. Alternatively, it is said: All bodily consciousness entering the tactile should be spoken of as the four great elements. Bodily consciousness is not separate from the four great elements; the four great elements increase and each is spoken of individually.
云何無明？或作是說：無智是無明也。問：云何無智言非智耶？設是非智彼是無明，草木牆壁皆不智，欲使彼是無明耶？答曰：心念法與心相應。問：心所念法眾，名心法相無智。云何彌沙塞作是說：未辯無明，修行無明。彼不有明時，彼謂無明。如不有鹽，彼謂之無鹽。問：若彼無有明時，彼便起明，則有無明。猶如彼器無鹽，彼器謂之無鹽。若不有明，彼無明空，便有無明。若是明物是無明者，云何行有緣？或作是說：五蓋是無明。世尊亦說，世間愚人無明所覆。問：結無有要處。或作是說：思惟不淨是謂無明。世尊亦說，比丘當思惟不淨。未生欲漏便生，已生欲漏倍增廣；有漏、無明漏亦復如是。亦言：無明習即是有漏習，是故思惟不淨。是謂無明也。問：非思惟不淨是無明耶？彼緣思惟不淨亦是無明。
> What is ignorance? Some say: lacking wisdom is ignorance. Question: How can "lacking wisdom" mean "not wisdom"? If "not wisdom" is ignorance, then grass, trees, and walls all lack wisdom—are they all ignorance? Answer: Mental factors are associated with the mind. Question: Since mental factors are numerous, the defining characteristic of mental dharmas is non-wisdom. How does Mahīśāsaka say: not yet discerning is ignorance, practicing ignorance. When there is no wisdom present, that is called ignorance. Like when there is no salt, that is called saltless. Question: If when there is no wisdom, wisdom then arises, and there is ignorance—just as when a vessel has no salt, that vessel is called saltless. If there is no wisdom, and ignorance is empty, then there is ignorance. If that which is wisdom is ignorance, how does formation have conditions? Some say: the five hindrances are ignorance. The World-Honored One also said: worldly fools are covered by ignorance. Question: The fetters have no essential location. Some say: contemplating impurity is called ignorance. The World-Honored One also said: monks should contemplate impurity. Before arisen desire-taints arise, and already arisen desire-taints multiply and expand; the taints of existence and the taint of ignorance are likewise. It is also said: the arising of ignorance is the arising of taints, therefore contemplate impurity. This is called ignorance. Question: Is it not that contemplating impurity is ignorance? That which has as its condition the contemplation of impurity is also ignorance.
又世尊言，如是比丘思惟不淨。緣是無明，無明緣愛，是故無此思惟不淨，是無明也。問：若無明緣無明，意有何違？如所說無明緣癡。或作是說：四顛倒是無明。問：苦見斷顛倒是故無明，見苦斷見結、無明結亦如是，無有要處。或作是說：一切結是無明，智者是明。一切結不覺知，是故一切結是無明。問：使無有要處。答曰：若有十現色入要處，如是有使要處。或作是說：實不生也，邪生無明。或作是說：無明名者，無智、疑、順邪也。或作是說：無明有六相，癡、順邪、疑、悕望、欲得、無要處。或作是說：無明於聖諦不作無智也，順邪是謂無智。或作是說：自造有眾生，是我所無明，我造非有也。無明相云何？如上所說。復作是說：於此眾生愚癡無明相。云何無明有緣？如上所說。復次有我物有無明。無明、四顛倒有何差別？或作是說：見是顛倒，無常有常、苦有樂、不淨有淨、無我有我。有彼相應，及餘結使相應無智，是無明。問：彼所相應無智，無常有常、苦有樂，乃至無我有我。一處顛倒見，此無智是顛倒。此義云何？或作是說：見諦所斷顛倒，見諦思惟所斷無明。問：若無明見所斷，彼顛倒有何差別？或作是說：無有差別，顛倒者是無明也。問：若當爾者，須陀洹亦無有無明也。或作是說：無明無有壞敗，壞敗者是顛倒也。問：相應者，或有壞敗、或無敗壞。此義云何？或作是說：無道者謂無明，邪道者謂之顛倒。或作是說：無要者謂之無明，要者謂之顛倒。或作是說：一切結使是無明也，無明微者謂之顛倒。復次一切結是顛倒，顛倒微者亦是無明。
> The World-Honored One also said: "When a monk contemplates impurity in this way, this is conditioned by ignorance. Ignorance conditions craving. Therefore, without this contemplation of impurity, there is ignorance." Question: If ignorance is conditioned by ignorance, what fault is there in this? As it is said, ignorance conditions delusion. Some say: The four inverted views are ignorance. Question: The inverted views are eliminated by seeing suffering. Therefore, ignorance—along with the fetter of views and the fetter of ignorance eliminated by seeing suffering—is likewise without any definite basis. Some say: All fetters are ignorance; wisdom is clarity. Since all fetters are not understood, all fetters are ignorance. Question: This lacks any definite basis. Answer: If there is a definite basis for the ten manifest form-bases, then there is a definite basis for the fetters. Some say: Reality does not arise; distorted arising is ignorance. Some say: "Ignorance" means lack of wisdom, doubt, and adherence to what is distorted. Some say: Ignorance has six aspects: delusion, adherence to what is distorted, doubt, longing, desire to obtain, and lack of any definite basis. Some say: Ignorance is not the absence of knowledge regarding the Noble Truths; rather, adherence to what is distorted is what is meant by lack of knowledge. Some say: The view that the self creates beings—"this is my own"—is ignorance; the view "I create what is not real" is also ignorance. What is the characteristic of ignorance? As stated above. Another says: In this context, the characteristic of ignorance is foolishness regarding beings. How does ignorance have conditions? As stated above. Furthermore, ignorance concerning "my things" exists. What difference is there between ignorance and the four inverted views? Some say: Viewing is inversion—taking the impermanent as permanent, suffering as pleasure, the impure as pure, and non-self as self. The lack of wisdom associated with that, and associated with the remaining fetters, is ignorance. Question: That associated lack of wisdom—taking the impermanent as permanent, suffering as pleasure, and so on up to non-self as self—is in one place an inverted view. This lack of wisdom is inversion. What does this mean? Some say: Inversion is what is eliminated by seeing the truth; ignorance is what is eliminated by seeing the truth and by cultivation. Question: If ignorance is eliminated by seeing, what difference is there from inversion? Some say: There is no difference; inversion itself is ignorance. Question: If that were so, a stream-enterer would also be without ignorance. Some say: Ignorance is not subject to destruction; what is subject to destruction is inversion. Question: Regarding what is associated—sometimes subject to destruction, sometimes not subject to destruction—what does this mean? Some say: What is without the path is called ignorance; what is a wrong path is called inversion. Some say: What lacks any definite basis is called ignorance; what has a definite basis is called inversion. Some say: All fetters are ignorance; the subtle aspect of ignorance is called inversion. Furthermore: All fetters are inversion; the subtle aspect of inversion is also ignorance.
云何內相？云何外相？答曰：諸法自相，壞者外相。內相外相有何差別？或作是說：不普遍是內相，普遍者是外相。問：設當普者，虛空亦復普。設內相攝持，非內相還外相，是故有內相有外相。或作是說：不壞外相，壞者內相。問：普者亦壞，餘者無常，苦亦無常。答曰：五陰已壞，一不壞，無常普遍。問：如壞自相，不壞普遍相。如是不壞自相，壞者外相。或作是說：其不相類。問：青象青，黃者不相象。欲使彼是內相、是外相？答曰：青黃不同，欲使青是內相非外相。或作是說：現者是內相，未知智是外相。問：彼或有未知智，欲使彼是內相、是外相？乃至未知智究竟自相。或作是說：依是自相，依者外相。問：名色各各相依，亦是內相、外相耶？若依外相，彼自相。外相依外相，無無常依無常。或作是說：不共自相，共者外相。問：外亦是不共，無常、苦別。答曰：五陰中云何，無常外不共。問：如彼無常色、無常痛想行識，如實思惟乃至識無常。或作是說：與自然相應是內相，不相應是外相。問：若外無實者，今亦無也。若外相有者，彼亦有自相。或作是說：無有外相，一切自相。問：若無外相者，諸法亦無外。或作是說：已辯自相，不辯外相。或作是說：覺是自相，不覺者外相。遍有不壞象，未知智所依，不共不自有，無有不辯造偈也。猶如有此三有為有為相，餘者亦有為。摩訶僧耆說：當說此無常的異，相異無為相，今亦當有為相。作是說：當說無量逮有為法，問一一諸相與三相相應。問有何等異？答曰：展轉相生，生者已滅亦復不住。問：我有二起，等生、展轉相生，是故於中不異。或作是說：說已當復說。問：有為相、無為相，當有為耶？或作是說：非此非彼逮有為法，亦當說餘此非相視有為法，此生此滅常住不變易，是故不說。彼當說有常、當說無常？或作是說：當說有常。問：有常相者是為有為。或作是說：當說無常逮有為法。此亦如上所說。或作是說：當說有常、當說無常。起常住及彼，當言無常。問：有無為相，今當有為？或作是說：不得說有常無常。以何等故？諸法行成，故彼無常。彼法行成，是故非無常數。諸法縛著，是故非有常非無常。
> What is an inner characteristic? What is an outer characteristic? Answer: The intrinsic characteristic of all phenomena—that which breaks down—is an outer characteristic. What is the difference between inner and outer characteristics? Some say: What is not universal is an inner characteristic; what is universal is an outer characteristic. Question: If something is universal, then space is also universal. If the inner characteristic encompasses and holds, then what is not the inner characteristic falls back to the outer characteristic. Therefore there are inner characteristics and outer characteristics. Some say: What does not break down is an outer characteristic; what breaks down is an inner characteristic. Question: The universal also breaks down; the rest are impermanent; suffering is also impermanent. Answer: The five aggregates have already broken down; one does not break down—impermanence is universal. Question: Just as the intrinsic characteristic breaks down, the universal characteristic does not break down. Likewise, if the intrinsic characteristic does not break down, then what breaks down is the outer characteristic. Some say: Those that are not of the same kind. Question: A blue elephant is blue; a yellow one is not alike in being blue. Do you want that to be an inner characteristic or an outer characteristic? Answer: Blue and yellow are not the same. Do you want blue to be an inner characteristic and not an outer characteristic? Some say: What is present is an inner characteristic; what is known by unknown-knowledge is an outer characteristic. Question: That which is known by unknown-knowledge—do you want it to be an inner characteristic or an outer characteristic? Even the ultimate intrinsic characteristic known by unknown-knowledge. Some say: That which relies is an intrinsic characteristic; that which is relied upon is an outer characteristic. Question: Name and form each rely on one another—are they also inner characteristics and outer characteristics? If one relies on an outer characteristic, that is its intrinsic characteristic. An outer characteristic relies on an outer characteristic—there is no impermanence relying on impermanence. Some say: What is not shared is an intrinsic characteristic; what is shared is an outer characteristic. Question: The outer is also not shared—impermanence and suffering are distinct. Answer: Within the five aggregates, how is it? Impermanence is not shared externally. Question: Just as impermanent form, impermanent feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness—one contemplates them as they truly are, up to consciousness being impermanent. Some say: What corresponds with its own nature is an inner characteristic; what does not correspond is an outer characteristic. Question: If the outer has no reality, then now it also does not exist. If the outer characteristic exists, then it also has its own intrinsic characteristic. Some say: There is no outer characteristic—everything is intrinsic characteristic. Question: If there is no outer characteristic, then all phenomena also have no outer. Some say: The intrinsic characteristic has been explained; the outer characteristic has not been explained. Some say: What is perceived is the intrinsic characteristic; what is not perceived is the outer characteristic. The universal, undestroyed, and not-known-by-unknown-knowledge, not shared, not self-existing—there is none that is not explained. This is a verse. Just as there are these three conditioned marks of the conditioned, the rest are also conditioned. The Mahāsāṃghikas say: One should speak of this impermanence as distinct; the mark is distinct from the unconditioned mark, and now there should also be a conditioned mark. They say: One should speak of the immeasurable reaching conditioned phenomena. Question: Does each mark correspond with the three marks? Question: What differences are there? Answer: They arise from one another in turn; what has arisen has ceased and also does not abide. Question: I have two arisings—simultaneous arising and arising from one another in turn—therefore within this there is no difference. Some say: Having spoken, one should speak again. Question: Conditioned marks and unconditioned marks—should there be a conditioned? Some say: Neither this nor that reaches conditioned phenomena, and one should also speak of the rest—this is not the mark, viewing conditioned phenomena. This arises, this ceases, permanently abiding without change—therefore it is not spoken. Should one speak of it as permanent or speak of it as impermanent? Some say: One should speak of it as permanent. Question: That which has the mark of permanence is conditioned. Some say: One should speak of impermanence reaching conditioned phenomena. This is also as stated above. Some say: One should speak of permanence and should speak of impermanence. Arising and abiding, and that—one should say impermanent. Question: There is the unconditioned mark—should there now be a conditioned? Some say: One cannot say permanent or impermanent. For what reason? All phenomena are formed by conditions—therefore they are impermanent. Those phenomena are formed by conditions—therefore they are not reckoned as impermanent. All phenomena are bound and attached—therefore they are neither permanent nor impermanent. This is a verse.
初偈品竟。
> The opening verses are now complete.
### 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集偈品首聚揵度之二
> Verses of the Venerable Vasumitra's Collection: Opening Chapter
口、口行有何等異？或作是說：無有異，口者即口行也。問：設口是口行者，身非身行耶？問：若口與口行無異者，身與身行亦無有異。此義云何？少不屬身，或是身行。或作是說：文字說、文字所載是口行。問：若一一字非口行者，非與口行相應耶？答曰：一一諸字非口行、非相應，如一一字有諸義音響相應。或作是說：有所言是口所作。如口行中從口行者，是口語言。他有喜、有樂、有愁憂，當言是口行耶？答曰：非口語使彼有喜有樂。復次但作餘義，義有所思惟，則生喜相。或作是說：口有所說、口思惟行、出口者皆是口行。問：若思惟是身行者，思惟是口行，思惟是意行，是故三行無有定處。答曰：我身行異、心行異、口行異、意行異。問：所作行不定處者，復次聲是口行、字數亦是口行也。口、字數有何等異？或作是說：口是善、不善、無記，字數者無記。問：若口無記語者、彼字數，有何等異？或作是說：字數斷是口，非是字數。問：云何瘖瘂人與畜生有何等異，欲使彼無口行耶？或作是說：言是口義，非字數。問：如彼字數亦是義。猶如自然物，如風吹鈴鳴，非口行耶？本入三昧。或作是說：口造眾行，非字數亦造行。尊作是說：二聲無有差別，二事相行別，念知善字數斷是口，敷演深義亦是口亦是口行，二聲俱不異尊曇摩多羅入三昧乃知。以何等故，口善、不善、無記，字數者唯無記？或作是說：口發由心，然非字數也。問：字數發亦由心，非不用心。或作是說：妙無妙口所造，然非字數。問：字數妙非妙所造，猶如夢中覺及從三昧起。或作是說：口指授教戒，然非字數也。問：如無記口言，非指授教戒，我為所造。是故彼善、不善、無記，然非字數也。或作是說：口身行集，然非字數。問：字數者亦集身行。尊作是說：當量此二事，不見彼不自相、亦不見其功。口意等起，生妙無指授，受報兩相須偈也。
> What is the difference between speech and verbal formations? Some say: there is no difference—speech itself is verbal formation. Question: If speech is verbal formation, then is the body not bodily formation? Question: If speech and verbal formation are no different, then the body and bodily formation would also be no different. What does this mean? A small thing not belonging to the body may still be a bodily formation. Some say: words and what is carried by words are verbal formations. Question: If individual words are not verbal formations, are they not associated with verbal formations? Answer: Individual words are neither verbal formations nor associated. Just as individual words have various meanings and sounds that correspond. Some say: whatever is spoken is produced by speech. As in verbal formation, what proceeds from verbal formation is verbal speech. If another has joy, happiness, or sorrow—should this be called verbal formation? Answer: It is not speech that makes them have joy or happiness. Moreover, merely forming other meanings—when meaning is thought about, a sign of joy arises. Some say: whatever speech speaks, whatever speech thinks and forms, whatever is produced from speech—all are verbal formations. Question: If thinking is bodily formation, thinking is verbal formation, thinking is mental formation—then the three formations would have no fixed location. Answer: My bodily formation is distinct, mental formation is distinct, verbal formation is distinct, mental formation is distinct. Question: If the formations produced have no fixed location—moreover, sound is verbal formation, and words are also verbal formation. What is the difference between speech and words? Some say: speech is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral; words are only neutral. Question: If speech is neutral speech, what difference does it have from words? Some say: words are definitively speech, not words. Question: How then would a mute person differ from an animal, if they were to have no verbal formation? Some say: what is spoken is verbal meaning, not words. Question: But words are also meaning. Like a natural thing—like wind blowing a bell to ring—is that not verbal formation? This was originally entering samādhi. Some say: speech creates various formations; words also create formations. The venerable one said: the two sounds have no difference; the two matters differ in their activities. Mindfulness knowing wholesome words definitively is speech; expounding profound meaning is both speech and verbal formation. The two sounds are not different. The venerable Dharmatrāta knew this upon entering samādhi. For what reason is speech wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral, while words are only neutral? Some say: speech is issued from the mind, but words are not. Question: Words are also issued from the mind—they do not arise without the mind. Some say: the wonderful and the not-wonderful are produced by speech, but not by words. Question: Words are produced by the wonderful and not-wonderful, just as in a dream, on waking, and on rising from samādhi. Some say: speech designates and instructs in precepts, but words do not. Question: If neutral speech does not designate or instruct in precepts, then what I produce—therefore it is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral—but not words. Some say: speech accumulates bodily formation, but words do not. Question: Words also accumulate bodily formation. The venerable one said: one should weigh these two matters. One does not see them without mutual characteristics, nor does one see their function. Speech and mind arise together equally, producing the wonderful and non-designating. Receiving results, both are mutually required. This is a verse.
想與識有何差別？或作是說：無有差別，此二俱發出由心。問：設發出由心者，必有定處。若無差別者，陰亦定處。答曰：若如汝有三心意時則有陰處。或作是說：此是差別，是謂想、是識。問：名有定處，當說自相。或作是說：想為想、識為識知。問：此何義為所作？或作是說：想為想、識為識。問：此亦是我疑。想自知想、識自知識，有何等異？或作是說：心即是想、心亦是識。問：設心當爾者，則無有異，想痛心有何差別。或作是說：想憶所作識能自識。問：彼想為憶何等？若憶何者是故想自憶想？若憶餘者，彼則有一緣。或作是說：名憶是想，自相是識。問：一法俱有二名字及自相。問：設一法俱有二名字者，彼名亦異、自想亦異。設名不與相同者，是故想亦自亦有相，識者憶名。或作是說：外憶為想，自相是識。如此本已說。尊作是說：分別名自想，自想憶識。不惟此所作意名是外，乃至眼更痛及想及心及識有何等差別？當以此七方便說之。尊作是說：眼緣色生眼識，自相受識。識流馳此諸法，還更以此差降。意有三法，識別與識共，俱彼所得苦樂，造諸想追本所作，亦是想心所行法。是心此法，當言一相、當言若干想？或作是說：當言一相，若識緣青，意亦當爾。若不爾者，正有一緣一緣相應法。答曰：一相無有自相。問：忍痛識想分別心能思惟想亦相知。問：一切別，青實其青，想亦相知、心亦心知、識亦識知。此義云何？或作是說：此無量相。妙非妙痛，名為想所作，自識所作自識自相。問：無有一緣。尊作是說：當言無量相。設一相者，法則有壞、法則有亂。此無有定處。如此諸法而有自相，猶如此有為法不可得作無為法，無為法亦不可得作有為法。若爾者，世尊出世為何所為？答曰：不以此義佛世尊出，言我使有為作無為、無為作有為。譬如珍寶不可言非珍寶、非珍寶不可言是珍寶，但分別者知。譬如導方師，非道不可言道、道不可言非道，但導者能知。譬如然燈，下不可言高、高不可言下，但照明其高下。譬如醫師，藥不可言苦、苦不可言藥，苦、藥各異。上亦復如是。復次世尊為眾生故說此法義，猶如此有為法於三世各有自相得知外相。以何等故？或起或不起。此之謂也。或作是說：相有若干。問：彼相本無住，是故彼有相生。答曰：本有此相未生。問：設本有相，相無若干。答曰：如彼不種自生相者，則穢相各各異生，不與同相各未生，是謂相若干。問：設彼相已生、若未生者，是故彼各有增減，是故彼本無有而有生。答曰：如如來言，相無若干，彼則穢相生有異、或不生以此生有異。譬如青異、無常苦異，各無勝如，此亦如是。或作是說：事有若干。此亦如本所說。或作是說：因緣或生或不生也。問：或無有緣？答曰：別無有緣，此二不等等生。問：初無等語耶？答曰：非不有語。或作是說：三世處或生或不生，此之謂也。未來處是謂未來，過去世是謂過去，現在世是謂現在。問：世與行有異耶？設當世別、行別者，世常住。若世即是行者，是故彼行或聚或移。或作是說：一一事不同，或生或不生。過去行者知過去行，未來行知未來行，是謂未來。現在行知現在行，是謂現在。問：如彼未來非現在，設非現在常住也。若現在，是故彼未來知有現在則有現在，若彼未來知現在者則無現在。現在者便知現在知有現在，如彼現在移者則有過去。設無過去者則有常。有過去，是故汝現在知過去則有過去。設當如現在知過去無有過去也，汝過去知有過去則無則無過去。或作是說：此為何作是說？此為何作自相相應？答曰：是謂住常已作自相。若常不與自相相應者，則無有世自相生世。問：若自相生世者，即彼相生過去，是故世無有常處。答曰：我相未生、未來世未生，不壞現在世。不以生無生為異，是故世有常處也。問：若彼相不生，亦生非今有。答曰：若今不生，亦不生無為。復次常自相相應，此亦當無，或生或不生，是謂若無常者彼亦不生今亦無相應。
> What is the difference between perception and consciousness? Some say: there is no difference—both arise from the mind. Question: If both arise from the mind, they must have a fixed location. If there is no difference, then the aggregates too would have a fixed location. Answer: If, as you say, there are three aspects of mind, then there would be a location for the aggregates. Some say: this is the difference—this is perception, this is consciousness. Question: If names have fixed locations, then one should explain their own characteristics. Some say: perception is perceiving, consciousness is cognizing. Question: What is the meaning of this activity? Some say: perception is perception, consciousness is consciousness. Question: This too is my doubt. If perception knows perception itself and consciousness knows consciousness itself, what difference is there? Some say: mind itself is perception, mind itself is also consciousness. Question: If mind is like that, then there is no difference—what distinction is there between perception, feeling, and mind? Some say: perception remembers what has been done, consciousness can cognize itself. Question: What does that perception remember? If it remembers whatever it is, then perception remembers itself. If it remembers something else, then it has a single object. Some say: remembering names is perception, own-characteristic is consciousness. Question: One thing would then have two names and an own-characteristic. Question: If one thing has two names, then the name is also different and the own-mark is also different. If the name is not the same as the mark, then perception also has its own mark, and consciousness is the remembering of the name. Some say: external remembering is perception, own-characteristic is consciousness. As was said earlier. The Blessed One said: distinguishing names is own-perception, own-perception remembers consciousness. Not only this—intention made external, and even eye-contact, feeling, perception, mind, and consciousness—what difference is there? This should be explained through these seven approaches. The Blessed One said: the eye comes into contact with form and eye-consciousness arises; own-characteristic receives consciousness. Consciousness flows and races through these dharmas, and again through this differentiation. The mind has three dharmas; discrimination and consciousness together—whatever pleasure and pain they obtain, they create various perceptions tracing back to original actions; these are also the mind's range of activity. This mind, this dharma—should it be spoken of as one characteristic or as many perceptions? Some say: it should be spoken of as one characteristic—if consciousness takes blue as its object, the mind should also be so. If not, then there is just one object, one object as corresponding dharma. Answer: one characteristic has no own-characteristic. Question: Enduring pain, consciousness, perception, discrimination, and mind—can they think? Perception also knows characteristics. Question: All distinctions—blue is truly blue; perception also knows characteristics, mind also knows mind, consciousness also knows consciousness. What does this mean? Some say: this is immeasurable characteristics. Pleasant and unpleasant pain is called what perception does; what self-consciousness does is self-consciousness's own characteristic. Question: There is no single object. The Blessed One said: it should be spoken of as immeasurable characteristics. If it were one characteristic, then dharmas would decay and dharmas would be disordered. This has no fixed location. Thus all dharmas have their own characteristics—just as conditioned dharmas cannot be made into unconditioned dharmas, and unconditioned dharmas cannot be made into conditioned dharmas. If so, for what purpose did the World-Honored One appear in the world? Answer: Not for this purpose did the Buddha, the World-Honored One, appear—saying "I make the conditioned into the unconditioned, and the unconditioned into the conditioned." It is like a jewel: one cannot say it is not a jewel, and what is not a jewel cannot be said to be a jewel—but those who distinguish know. It is like a guide: a non-path cannot be called a path, and a path cannot be called a non-path—but a guide can know. It is like a lamp: below cannot be called above, and above cannot be called below—but it illuminates the high and low. It is like a physician: medicine cannot be called bitter, and bitter cannot be called medicine—bitter and medicine are each distinct. The same applies above. Furthermore, the World-Honored One taught this dharma-meaning for the sake of sentient beings—just as conditioned dharmas in the three times each have their own characteristics, and one can know outer marks. For what reason? Whether they arise or do not arise—this is the meaning. Some say: characteristics are many. Question: Those characteristics originally had no dwelling, and therefore they have characteristics that arise. Answer: originally these characteristics existed before arising. Question: If characteristics originally existed, then characteristics would not be many. Answer: If, like that, without planting, characteristics self-arise, then defiled characteristics would each arise differently, not sharing the same characteristic, each not yet arisen—this is what is meant by many characteristics. Question: If those characteristics have already arisen or have not yet arisen, then each has increase and decrease, and therefore they originally did not exist but now arise. Answer: As the Tathāgata said, characteristics are not many—defiled characteristics arise differently, or do not arise; by this, arising is different. For example, blue is different, impermanence and suffering are different, each without superiority or inferiority—this is also so. Some say: things are many. This is also as previously stated. Some say: causes and conditions may arise or may not arise. Question: Or is there no condition? Answer: There is no other condition—these two are not equal, and equal arising. Question: Is there originally no equal speech? Answer: It is not that there is no speech. Some say: in the three times, situations may arise or not arise—this is the meaning. A future situation is called future; a past time is called past; a present time is called present. Question: Are time and formations different? If time were separate and formations separate, then time would be permanent. If time itself is formations, then those formations would either gather or shift. Some say: each thing is different; some arise, some do not. Past formations know past formations; future formations know future formations—this is called future. Present formations know present formations—this is called present. Question: If that future is not present, and if it is not present it would be permanent. If it is present, then that future knowing there is a present would mean there is a present. If that future knows the present, then there would be no present. The present knows the present, knowing there is a present; just as the present shifts, there is the past. If there were no past, there would be permanence. There is a past; therefore, your present knowing the past means there is a past. If, like the present knowing the past, there were no past, then your past knowing there is a past would mean there is no past. Some say: why is this said? Why is this said to correspond to own-characteristics? Answer: this is called dwelling permanently and having made own-characteristics. If the permanent did not correspond to own-characteristics, then there would be no world, and own-characteristics would not generate the world. Question: If own-characteristics generate the world, then those characteristics generate the past, and therefore the world has no permanent location. Answer: my characteristics have not arisen; the future world has not arisen; it does not destroy the present world. It is not by arising or non-arising that there is difference; therefore the world has a permanent location. Question: If those characteristics do not arise, they also arise—not existing now. Answer: if they do not arise now, they also do not arise as the unconditioned. Furthermore, if permanent own-characteristics correspond, this too should be absent—whether arising or not arising. This is to say: if impermanent, that too does not arise now, and there is also no correspondence.
相作若干種， 因緣世如是，一一共相生， 本相為所作。
> They manifest in various forms— this is how causes and conditions arise in the world. Each arises together with the others, their fundamental nature being what is produced.
猶如此有為法非不無非為不有，無為法非不無非為不有。以何等故，有為法謂之無常，無為謂之有常？或作是說：有為法相有若干，不有無為法。或作是說：有為法作若干種，不有無為法。或作是說：有為法有因緣，不有無為法。或作是說：有為法有世處所：不有無為法。或作是說：有為法種種別異，不有無為法。尊作是說：有為法所作相因緣，則因緣相生。因與緣有何差別？或作是說：無有差別。合會所有，無合會則無，即是因與緣。如所說因即是緣者，是謂生老病死。問：設合會有者，彼即是緣。因眼有眼識，欲使彼是因非緣耶？答曰：非眼合會生眼識，有對則有眼識，是故合會亦是因亦是緣。或作是說：合會是因，所作是緣。問：若合會，作合會者因非緣乎？答曰：一一所作緣，合會有因。問：若一一所作非因者，合會亦非因耶？答曰：一一所作非因，合會有。如一一所作非合會，合會有。合會亦復如是。或作是說：自然是因，非自然是緣。問：麥所生牙，牙與麥相類耶。設與麥相類者，欲使四大同因業耶？或作是說：次第是因，在遠者是緣。問：因緣及次第緣。因緣及次第緣無有差別。若善次第起不善心，是因非緣耶？或作是說：不共是因，共是緣。問：眼不共，生眼識。欲使此是因非緣？麥與根牙共生莖，此是緣非因。或作是說：生者是因，更生是緣。問：今生無緣，麥更生無因。或作是說：自長養是因，養他是緣。問：若自心生善即為自養，欲使此是因非緣耶？尊作是說：迴轉是說，迴轉是因、不迴轉是緣。
> Just as conditioned phenomena are not nonexistent, and unconditioned phenomena are not nonexistent. For what reason are conditioned phenomena called impermanent, and the unconditioned called permanent? Some say: Conditioned phenomena have many characteristics, which the unconditioned does not have. Some say: Conditioned phenomena produce many kinds of things, which the unconditioned does not. Some say: Conditioned phenomena have causes and conditions, which the unconditioned does not. Some say: Conditioned phenomena have a location in time and place, which the unconditioned does not. Some say: Conditioned phenomena are varied and different, which the unconditioned is not. The venerable one said: Conditioned phenomena are produced by causes and conditions, and arise from the characteristics of causes and conditions. What is the difference between a cause and a condition? Some say: There is no difference. Whatever comes together is a cause; when there is no coming together, there is nothing — that itself is cause and condition. As was said, "cause is condition" — this refers to birth, aging, sickness, and death. Question: If things come together, that itself is a condition. Because there is an eye, there is eye-consciousness. Would you say that this is a cause but not a condition? Answer: It is not that the eye coming together produces eye-consciousness. Where there is resistance, there is eye-consciousness. Therefore, coming together is both cause and condition. Some say: Coming together is the cause; what is produced is the condition. Question: If coming together is the cause, is the one who brings about the coming together a cause but not a condition? Answer: Each individual production is a condition; coming together is the cause. Question: If each individual production is not a cause, is coming together also not a cause? Answer: Each individual production is not a cause, but coming together is. Just as each individual production is not coming together, yet coming together exists. Coming together is also like this. Some say: Nature itself is the cause; what is not nature itself is the condition. Question: The sprout produced from barley — is the sprout similar to the barley? If it is similar to the barley, would you say the four great elements share the same karma? Some say: Sequence is the cause; what is distant is the condition. Question: Cause-condition and sequential condition — is there no difference between cause-condition and sequential condition? If a wholesome sequence gives rise to an unwholesome mind, is that a cause but not a condition? Some say: What is not shared is the cause; what is shared is the condition. Question: The eye is not shared, yet it produces eye-consciousness. Would you say this is a cause but not a condition? Barley and root-sprout together produce the stalk — this is a condition but not a cause. Some say: What produces is the cause; what produces again is the condition. Question: If the present production has no condition, then barley producing again has no cause. Some say: Self-nourishment is the cause; nourishing others is the condition. Question: If one's own mind gives rise to wholesome states, that is self-nourishment. Would you say this is a cause but not a condition? The venerable one said: This teaching is reversible. What is reversible is the cause; what is not reversible is the condition.
無有合會， 自然次第， 諸共所生，自身迴轉。
> With no gathering or meeting, they naturally proceed in sequence— whatever arises in common, turns back upon itself.
云何次第緣耶？或作是說：過去心所念法，次第緣也。問：未來心心法中間生次第緣？或作是說：過去現在心心法次第緣。問：未來心心法若久生，中間彼次第緣生？或作是說：一切心心法謂之次第緣。問：如今阿羅漢後心，次第更生餘心？或作是說：除阿羅漢後心，餘心心法謂之次第緣。問：滅盡三昧後心，復生餘心？答曰：起心中間次第緣也。尊作是說：若心次第生心者，即次第緣也。何以故？非色、心、心法有次第緣也。從何法出？何以故？次第少者生多、多者生少。次第緣相云何？或作是說：行施所避是次第緣相。或作是說：照其心是次第緣相。或作是說：次第心性迴轉是次第緣相。或作是說：次第心性益次第緣相。次第緣當言定、當言非定、當言常定？或作是說：當言常定。問：如阿羅漢於今後心，次第更生餘心？答曰：阿羅漢非有後心次第緣。或作是說：當言非常定。問：則無次第緣。答曰：猶如因緣無有常定，必有因緣亦復如是。尊作是說：以觀現在次第緣，彼當言常定。觀現在相次第緣自有常，當言已果。云何得知？有無教？或作是說：從所生知。亦作是說：有色不可見無對。問：云何審從所生知？此非現在。若色不可見無對，無色亦不可見無對，是故汝色無色無有差別。或作是說：常住餘得知見，有無教戒成就，彼所作供養。我觀有無教戒，觀彼所作相。問：彼非觀所作無教，彼觀所作智教。若作有無教者，諸所有無教，彼一切當觀所作，彼所有教最是妙行。或作是說：事事相觀照，戒律不戒律滅盡，戒有不見戒律滅，見有戒律不戒律滅盡。問：非戒律滅盡，道亦非戒律滅盡？或作是說：由墮罪知說禁戒時。知有墮不墮者犯無量罪，觀彼有此無教諸犯罪者。問：彼非無教，憶本所犯。設無教犯相者，乃至無教，彼一切犯罪。或作是說：知有勝不勝者，不觀教則有無教。如觀有為則有無為，雖有此教我觀彼無教。問：彼不盡有勝無勝。若觀一切無勝者，欲使彼有勝耶？設有者，則無有勝；若一切妙有勝者，彼則無也。或作是說：生天上然後能知，習行不犯然後生天上。問：云何習行不犯？為數數不犯，能知心不犯，從彼修行心，然後得生天上？或作是說：不知。何以故？彼非智章。彼有教義住與共相應，況無教者，彼依經生天。如彼智章無教，身身痛有何差別。或作是說：無教身縛身痛心縛。問：彼為身根所縛。或作是說：無教戒數色陰所攝。又身痛者是意法，痛陰所攝。或作是說：二俱無對，增減難說。無教心、心不相應行有何種別？或作是說：無教是色，心不相應行非色。或作是說：無教者是物，心不相應行非物。或作是說：無教非智觀物各各成，心不相應行不自然法所造。
> What is the sequential condition? Some say: past mental factors and the dharmas they contemplate are the sequential condition. Question: Do future mental factors and mental dharmas arising in between constitute the sequential condition? Some say: past and present mental factors and mental dharmas are the sequential condition. Question: If future mental factors and mental dharmas arise after a long time, does the sequential condition arise in between? Some say: all mental factors and mental dharmas are called the sequential condition. Question: In the case of an Arhat's final mind, does another mind arise sequentially afterward? Some say: except for the Arhat's final mind, the remaining mental factors and mental dharmas are called the sequential condition. Question: After the mind of the cessation absorption, does another mind arise again? Answer: The sequential condition operates in the interval of arising minds. The Venerable says: if one mind arises sequentially after another mind, that is the sequential condition. Why? It is not that form, mind, or mental dharmas have a sequential condition. From what dharma do they arise? Why? The sequential may be few and give rise to many, or many and give rise to few. What is the characteristic of the sequential condition? Some say: what is avoided by practicing giving is the characteristic of the sequential condition. Some say: illuminating the mind is the characteristic of the sequential condition. Some say: the sequential mind-nature turning around is the characteristic of the sequential condition. Some say: the sequential mind-nature increasing is the characteristic of the sequential condition. Should the sequential condition be called fixed, non-fixed, or permanently fixed? Some say: it should be called permanently fixed. Question: As with the Arhat's final mind today, does another mind arise sequentially afterward? Answer: The Arhat has no sequential condition of a final mind. Some say: it should be called not permanently fixed. Question: Then there is no sequential condition. Answer: Just as causes and conditions have no permanent fixity, yet causes and conditions necessarily exist, so too is this. The Venerable says: by observing the present sequential condition, it should be called permanently fixed. Observing the present characteristic of the sequential condition, it has its own constancy and should be called already fruited. How do we know? Is there non-instruction? Some say: we know from what is produced. Some also say: there is form that is invisible and non-resistant. Question: How do we ascertain knowledge from what is produced? This is not present. If form is invisible and non-resistant, and the formless is also invisible and non-resistant, then your form and formless have no difference. Some say: the permanent remainder obtains knowledge and vision, and there is accomplishment of non-instruction precepts; that is what is offered. I observe non-instruction precepts and observe the characteristics of what is done. Question: That is not observing the non-instruction of what is done; that is observing the knowledge-instruction of what is done. If one makes non-instruction, all that is non-instruction should be observed as what is done; all that is instruction is the most excellent practice. Some say: all dharmas observe each other; precepts and non-precepts are extinguished, precepts exist without seeing precept-extinction, seeing exists with precepts and non-precepts extinguished. Question: Is it not that precepts are extinguished, and the path is also not precept-extinction? Some say: from transgression one knows when precepts are taught. Knowing there is transgression or non-transgression, one commits immeasurable offenses; observing this, there is non-instruction for all offenders. Question: That is not non-instruction; one remembers former transgressions. If there is the characteristic of non-instruction transgression, then even non-instruction—all of that is transgression. Some say: knowing there is superior and inferior, without observing instruction there is non-instruction. Just as observing the conditioned means there is the unconditioned, although there is this instruction, I observe that non-instruction. Question: That does not exhaust superior and non-superior. If one observes all as non-superior, does one wish it to be superior? If there is, then there is no superiority; if all subtle dharmas are superior, then that is not so. Some say: one is born in heaven and then can know; practicing without transgression, one is then born in heaven. Question: How does practicing without transgression work? Is it repeatedly not transgressing, able to know the mind does not transgress, and from that cultivated mind one is then born in heaven? Some say: one does not know. Why? That is not a mark of wisdom. There is instruction-meaning abiding and corresponding together, how much more so the non-instruction that depends on scripture to be born in heaven. As with that mark of wisdom and non-instruction, what difference is there between bodily bondage and bodily pain? Some say: non-instruction binds the body, bodily pain binds the mind. Question: That is bound by the bodily faculty. Some say: non-instruction precepts are included in the aggregate of form. Also, bodily pain is a mental dharma, included in the aggregate of feeling. Some say: both are non-resistant; increase and decrease are hard to explain. What distinction is there between non-instruction mind, mental factors not associated with mind, and volitional formations? Some say: non-instruction is form; mental factors not associated with mind are not form. Some say: non-instruction is a thing; mental factors not associated with mind are not a thing. Some say: non-instruction is not a mark of wisdom observing things each individually; mental factors not associated with mind are not produced by natural dharmas.
第二偈品竟胡本題在此，理應題於偈後也。
> The second chapter of verses is complete. In the Hu edition, the title appears here; logically, the title should come after the verses.
口識有三種， 猶如三有為，因緣有四種， 無教有三業。
> Consciousness of the mouth comes in three kinds, just like the three conditioned realms. Causes and conditions come in four kinds; the untaught has three types of karma.
### 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集偈品首聚揵度之三
> Collection of Verses by Venerable Vasumitra Bodhisattva, Chapter Head
苦由因意得， 無智亦有五，色根悉具足， 各各有七苦。
> Suffering arises from the mind's intentions, And the unwise also have five. The faculties of form are all complete, Each and every one has seven sufferings.
得，心心法因緣，不思惟緣。心心法緣，自相欲使作緣。或作是說：無也。何以故？因緣心心法之所攝持，不可使青國覺緣也外國見聞皆曰國。問：設當覺者，青國有緣。如彼覺青國，則有覺。若青有國作緣，因緣自相則有二覺，若覺、若餘覺。緣青國攝餘青國。若覺緣青國，彼亦不敢青國攝覺作緣。或作是說：得如所說。如恐怖人，不知為誰所恐，心自相作緣，緣亦不自知。問：彼非自相作緣耶？設作緣者自知有緣，自相性自爾。或作是說：得如所說，有是想、有是心。答曰：是誰想、是誰心？若作是說：彼即是緣。若不作是說，是為想、是為心，如是心不合不相應。或作是說：得若未來心心法作緣，緣彼即是緣。當熟思惟，彼心心法自相作緣，彼不知有緣。何以故？不以未來緣造有緣。答曰：彼不自相作緣。若作自相緣者，緣亦有智生自相自識。或作是說：得如頭腹脇有痛，痛自緣相而造緣，緣不自知。問：彼痛自相而造緣不作緣。痛無處所，痛自相生，現其實頭腹有痛。或作是說：得設當不得者，則有二。知他人心，心心各各作緣已，心自作緣，是故自然不知。此非是妙，是故已得。或作是說：得設當不得者，心緣心無有究竟，則有因緣。此非是妙，是故已得。尊作是說：得痛相心有何差別？此意識境界不從中得得識。若不得識受自相，此謂究竟。於中有餘意識入，則有壞敗。
> Mind and mental factors arise from causes and conditions, but they do not think about those conditions. Mind and mental factors take their own characteristics as their object—they want to make that their focus. Some say: This is not so. Why? Because mind and mental factors are held together by causes and conditions, and cannot make blue or a country the object of awareness. Question: If one were to be aware, then blue or a country would be the object. Just as one is aware of blue or a country, there is awareness. If blue or a country serves as the object, then the cause-condition and the own-characteristic would involve two awarenesses—one awareness and another awareness. When blue or a country is the object, it encompasses other blue or countries. If awareness takes blue or a country as its object, it likewise cannot have blue or a country take that awareness as its object. Some say: It is as stated. Like a terrified person who does not know who is frightening them—the mind takes its own characteristic as object, and the object also does not know itself. Question: Is that not taking its own characteristic as object? If it takes an object, it knows it has an object—this is simply the nature of own-characteristics being what they are. Some say: It is as stated—there is such perception, there is such mind. Answer: Whose perception is this? Whose mind is this? If you say it is the object itself, then if you do not say that, it is perception, it is mind—and such a mind is not united, not connected. Some say: If future mind and mental factors serve as object, then that object is the object. Consider carefully: those mind and mental factors take their own characteristics as object, and they do not know they have an object. Why? Because a future object does not create having-an-object. Answer: They do not take their own characteristics as object. If they took their own characteristics as object, the object would also give rise to a knowing that has its own characteristic and its own cognition. Some say: Just as there is pain in the head, belly, or sides—pain takes its own characteristic and creates an object, but the object does not know itself. Question: That pain takes its own characteristic and creates an object, but does not make \[itself\] the object. Pain has no location. Pain arises from its own characteristic, and it manifests the reality that the head and belly have pain. Some say: If one could not obtain \[this\], then there would be two. Knowing another's mind—mind and mental factors each take their own object, and then the mind makes its own object. Therefore naturally it does not know. This is not excellent; therefore it is already obtained. Some say: If one could not obtain \[this\], then the mind's taking mind as object would have no conclusion, and there would be cause and condition. This is not excellent; therefore it is already obtained. The Venerable One said: What difference is there between the characteristic of pain and mind? This is the domain of mental consciousness—consciousness cannot be obtained from within it. If one cannot obtain consciousness experiencing its own characteristic, this is called the ultimate. If within this there is another mental consciousness entering, then there is corruption and ruin.
不還心恐怖， 未來想亦爾，痛及他人心， 心緣痛此彼。
> The mind that does not return is free from fear; The same is true for thoughts of the future. Pain, and the minds of others— The mind takes these as its object, here and there.
還心心法。設心心緣，此二俱前後而自作相。或作是說：得如覺青國一時作緣。問：此非譬喻。設當作緣者，則有二自覺。或作是說：不可得也。設作緣者，青與覺等無有異也，覺亦復無異，是故是等是耶？是故不得此非如。或作是說：不可得。何以故？非以此轉而受諸法。非一轉非再轉故曰為一，是故可得。以何等故眼識不知眼根？或作是說：可見緣眼識，不可見緣眼根。問：耳識今知耳根，彼緣不可見。或作是說：攝境界是眼，近者是眼根，是故不知。問：鼻識今知鼻根，彼還境界。或作是說：四大是眼，非四大境界，是故不知。問：身識今知身根，彼是四大境界。或作是說：依眼根識非心心法，自依是故不知。問：意識今不知意根，彼即是依。問：不可知無有一切諸法境界。或作是說：若眼壞敗是眼識，眼不掩眼，是故彼不知。問：此亦是我疑。何故眼不掩眼？答曰：此中無物自然自然所壞。或作是說：不可知。設當知者，諸入則有壞敗六識未壞時。或作是說：彼非此境界。問：此亦是我疑。何以故？彼非境界。或作是說：色自相攝受諸眼識，非色自然非眼根，是故彼不知。
> The mind and mental factors are mutually dependent. If mind and mental factors arise together, both arise with what comes before and after, each forming its own characteristic. Some say: it is like perceiving blue—at one moment it becomes an object. Question: This is not a metaphor. If it were to become an object, then there would be two self-perceptions. Some say: it cannot be obtained. If it were to become an object, blue and perception would be equal with no difference, and perception would also be no different. Therefore, are these equal? Therefore, this cannot be obtained—it is not like that. Some say: it cannot be obtained. Why? Because it is not through this turning that one receives dharmas. Since it is not one turning and not a second turning, it is called one. Therefore, it can be obtained. For what reason does eye-consciousness not know the eye-faculty? Some say: what can be seen is the object of eye-consciousness; what cannot be seen is the object of the eye-faculty. Question: Ear-consciousness now knows the ear-faculty, but its object is invisible. Some say: what encompasses the domain is the eye; what is near is the eye-faculty. Therefore, it does not know. Question: Nose-consciousness now knows the nose-faculty, but that still belongs to the domain. Some say: the four great elements are the eye, not the domain of the four great elements. Therefore, it does not know. Question: Body-consciousness now knows the body-faculty, and that is the domain of the four great elements. Some say: consciousness relying on the eye-faculty is not a mental factor; since it relies on itself, it does not know. Question: Mind-consciousness now does not know the mind-faculty, for that is precisely its support. Question: It cannot be known that there is no domain for all dharmas. Some say: if the eye is destroyed, that is eye-consciousness; the eye does not cover the eye. Therefore, it does not know. Question: This too is my doubt. Why does the eye not cover the eye? Answer: Here there is nothing—naturally, naturally destroyed. Some say: it cannot be known. If it could know, then the sense-bases would be destroyed before the six consciousnesses are destroyed. Some say: that is not this domain. Question: This too is my doubt. Why? Because that is not the domain. Some say: form's own characteristic receives all eye-consciousness; it is not that form is natural and not the eye-faculty. Therefore, it does not know.
可見以近坐， 我依彼四大，掩眼而有壞， 境界是色相。
> Visible because it sits nearby— I rely on those four great elements, though covered, the eyes still meet decay; the realm perceived is form and appearance.
耳根可見亦復如是。鼻根可見當言非近坐，舌根身根可見，彼是四大我所造，當作是說。如此五根色，一切四大所造。以何等故若干相有若干貌？或作是說：無有相貌。猶如眼識，諸所有色一切四大之所造，有若干相有若干貌。無所有故，亦復如是。或作是說：處有勝故。及餘處眼根乃至身髮，是故種種根所。以種種相故，是故種種貌。問：餘處有一貌、或復有二。欲使彼眼根有若干相有若干貌？一切處盡是身根，欲使身根作若干相若干貌？或作是說：四大所造色歡喜根，及餘四大歡喜眼根，餘乃至身根，於中種種相。問：餘四大歡喜一眼，或有餘二眼。欲使眼所視處有種種相耶？或作是說：我作四大眼根及餘四大眼，餘乃至身根，於中種種相，廣說如上。問：餘四大一眼或餘有二，欲使眼根有種種貌？或作是說：行垢所造根，因緣行垢得眼根，餘乃至身根，於中種種相種種貌，廣說如上。答曰：餘因行垢而成一眼根、或復成二根，欲使眼根作種種相耶？或作是說：四大之中相應行，所以有種種相者，以其作種種貌。問：或一四大、或二或四？答曰：一切少通有四大，少多共合。或作是說，四大境界有增減，是故妙四大所造色亦妙。問：頗或時地有堅相無堅相？答曰：一切堅相但堅相，但堅相有增減。譬如鐵鉛錫下至金首。尊作是說：始生百物有種種相。所以種種相者，以其有種種貌。
> The ear faculty can be seen in the same way. The nose faculty can be seen — though one should not say it sits nearby. The tongue faculty and body faculty can be seen. These are made by the four great elements and by what I have created — this is how it should be stated. Thus the form of the five faculties is all made by the four great elements. For what reason do they have various characteristics and various appearances? Some say: There are no distinguishing marks. Just as eye-consciousness — all forms whatsoever are made by the four great elements, yet they have various characteristics and various appearances. Since there is nothing that exists independently, it is the same here. Some say: It is because certain domains are superior. And in other domains, the eye faculty down to the body and hair — thus there are various faculties in various locations. Because of various characteristics, therefore various appearances. Question: In other domains there is one appearance, or perhaps two. Would you claim the eye faculty has various characteristics and various appearances? Everywhere it is entirely the body faculty — would you claim the body faculty produces various characteristics and various appearances? Some say: The form made by the four great elements — the faculty of joy — and the remaining four great elements — the joyful eye faculty, and the rest down to the body faculty — within these there are various characteristics. Question: Other four great elements produce one eye, or perhaps two eyes. Would you claim that the range of what the eye sees has various characteristics? Some say: I make the four great elements into the eye faculty, and other four great elements into the eye, and the rest down to the body faculty — within these there are various characteristics, explained in detail as above. Question: Other four great elements make one eye, or perhaps two — would you claim the eye faculty has various appearances? Some say: The faculty produced by the defilements of action — through the cause and condition of the defilements of action, the eye faculty is obtained, and the rest down to the body faculty — within these there are various characteristics and various appearances, explained in detail as above. Answer: Other causes and defilements of action form one eye faculty, or perhaps form two faculties — would you claim the eye faculty produces various characteristics? Some say: Among the four great elements, there is a corresponding formation. The reason there are various characteristics is that it produces various appearances. Question: Is it one great element, or two, or four? Answer: All are at least partly connected with the four great elements — few and many combine together. Some say: The domains of the four great elements increase and decrease, and therefore the form made by the excellent four great elements is also excellent. Question: Is there ever a time when earth has the characteristic of hardness and also lacks the characteristic of hardness? Answer: All that is hard is simply hard — but hardness itself increases and decreases. It is like iron, lead, tin, down to gold and the finest gold. The Blessed One said this: From the very beginning, the hundred things that arise have various characteristics. The reason they have various characteristics is that they have various appearances.
色處諸勝者， 歡喜及我造，速疾行相應， 自興病生老。
> The form realm's victors, joy, and what I have made— swiftly moving, in accord, arising from oneself: sickness, birth, and aging.
眼根相作此等者，有何差別？或作是說：以眼見色，見已見當見，是謂眼見。問：此亦是我疑。云何以眼見色，見已見當見，終不起法眼，不見色不已見不當見，欲使彼是眼耶？答曰：我已說是，設如此像亦是自然。問：云何不見是見自然耶？答曰：眼是其貌。或作是說：黑瞳子是眼所照者作者。
> When the eye faculty is made like this, what is the difference? Some say: by means of the eye one sees forms — seeing, having seen, and yet to see — this is called seeing with the eye. Question: This too is my doubt. How is it that by means of the eye one sees forms — seeing, having seen, and yet to see — and yet the eye of Dharma never arises, and one does not see forms, has not seen, and will not see? Would you have that be the eye? Answer: I have already stated this — given such a likeness, it is also natural. Question: How is it that not seeing is the natural state of seeing? Answer: The eye is its appearance. Some say: the black pupil is what the eye illumines and what the eye makes.
問：云何得知黑瞳子是眼？答曰：黑瞳子是本。問：黑瞳子非其本。答曰：及餘事無所攝。欲使彼是眼，是故此事不然，彼亦當異。是故彼事無所攝，欲使彼非眼耶？或作是說：四大所造色眼根歡喜，因有眼識境界，是謂指授教戒，是謂彼作。問：一切五根所造色歡喜，是故彼非眼根自相。或作是說：依眼識，根有。眼根依眼識，是謂其事。問：諸不起法，是眼識異，不等依彼眼識。欲使彼非眼耶？或作是說：四大是眼根眼識相依，是謂其事。問：四大相自壞，是謂四大相自壞，眼根相不壞一相，依眼識造眾事。問：如四大自相壞，一相眼根。如是我相眼根不壞，一相眼識相依而成。或作是說：色香味細滑所纏，眼根眼識增益作眾事。問：今五識身各知眼根。或作是說：此非境界。問：此亦是我疑。何以故？或作是說：彼非境界。眼根無自相無有數，然後成眼根。問：若眼根無自相者，眼無有覺。答曰：知眼數之物是謂覺知。眼如身數之物，謂之厭足。身厭足者，非四大身，有一自相。或作是說：所造色自然，眼識增上現有增減，是謂其事。算數彼時漸漸知性自然爾，於中諸入亦復當爾。
> Question: How do we know that the black pupil is the eye? Answer: The black pupil is the basis. Question: The black pupil is not the basis. Answer: And it is not included among other things. If we want it to be the eye, then this is not the case, and it would also be different. Therefore, if that matter is not included, do we want it not to be the eye? Alternatively, it is said: The eye faculty is a form produced by the four great elements, and it delights in having the domain of eye-consciousness as its condition. This is what is called instruction and guidance, and this is what it does. Question: All forms produced by the five faculties delight, and therefore that is not the eye faculty's own characteristic. Alternatively, it is said: The faculty exists depending on eye-consciousness. The eye faculty depends on eye-consciousness—this is the matter. Question: All unconditioned phenomena are different from eye-consciousness and do not equally depend on that eye-consciousness. Do we want it not to be the eye? Alternatively, it is said: The four great elements are the eye faculty, and eye-consciousness depends on them mutually—this is the matter. Question: The characteristics of the four great elements destroy themselves. This is the self-destruction of the characteristics of the four great elements. The characteristic of the eye faculty is one undestroyed characteristic, producing many things depending on eye-consciousness. Question: Just as the four great elements have self-destroying characteristics, so too the eye faculty has one characteristic. In this way, my characteristic—the eye faculty—is undestroyed, and eye-consciousness arises depending on one characteristic. Alternatively, it is said: Wrapped up in color, smell, taste, and tactile sensations, the eye faculty and eye-consciousness increase and produce many things. Question: Now the five consciousnesses each know the eye faculty. Alternatively, it is said: This is not the domain. Question: This is also my doubt. Why? Alternatively, it is said: That is not the domain. The eye faculty has no self-characteristic and no number, and only then does it become the eye faculty. Question: If the eye faculty has no self-characteristic, then the eye has no sensation. Answer: Knowing the number of the eye—this is what is called sensation and cognition. The eye, like the number of the body, is called contentment. The contentment of the body is not the body of the four great elements; it has one self-characteristic. Alternatively, it is said: Produced form is natural; eye-consciousness increases and presently has increase and decrease—this is the matter. Counting at that time gradually knows the nature naturally. Among these, the sense bases should also be thus.
觀眼黑瞳子， 歡喜各相依，四大皆集聚， 無造無狐疑。
> Observe the eye's dark pupil— joy and delight each depend on one another. The four great elements all gather together, with nothing created, nothing to doubt.
五根亦復如是。意根自相依有何差別？或作是說：意知諸法，知已知當知。眼根亦復如是，意識造增上，是謂其事。或作是說：意識相依相，意根依意識，是謂其事。或作是說：或出或沒，五識身意根依識，是謂其事。問：無色界不生意識，於彼無五識身？或作是說：六識身意識身增上，從增上諸所生識，是謂其事。問：名色展轉不相依。復次彼識自相意根作增上，是謂其事。算數彼時，乃至究竟彼性自然，於中意識則有壞。云何為意？云何為意識？前說四事。六識身相應意，增上識所生智，心緣彼是意識也。
> The five faculties are the same way. If the mental faculty relies on one another, what difference is there? Some say: the mind knows all dharmas—knowing what is known, what will be known. The eye faculty is the same way; mental consciousness arises with it as the governing condition. That is what is meant. Some say: mental consciousness relies on one another; the mental faculty relies on mental consciousness. That is what is meant. Some say: whether arising or ceasing, the five consciousnesses and the mental faculty rely on consciousness. That is what is meant. Question: In the formless realm, mental consciousness does not arise—are the five consciousnesses absent there? Some say: the six consciousnesses and mental consciousness are governed by a superior condition; consciousnesses produced from that superior condition—that is what is meant. Question: Name and form do not rely on each other in turn. Moreover, that consciousness, by its own characteristic, has the mental faculty as its governing condition. That is what is meant. When calculated at that time, even to the ultimate point, that nature is spontaneous; within it, mental consciousness then ceases. What is the mental faculty? What is mental consciousness? The four matters were explained earlier. The mental faculty corresponds to the six consciousnesses; the wisdom born from consciousness governed by a superior condition—the mind taking that as its object is mental consciousness.
第三偈品竟。
> The Third Chapter on Verses is complete.
### 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集偈品首聚揵度之四
> Collected Verses of the Bodhisattva Vasumitra, First Chapter
如現在痛自身不更，過去未來痛亦不樂亦不苦。云何得知我苦我樂？尊摩訶僧耆作是說：彼痛自然自身更、自然識知。問：此非譬喻。不見有物自然所迴轉。如有斷絕之物，能不自相斷。戟不自割、指頭自不相觸，此亦如是。尊曇摩崛作是說：心相應智慧而得知。問：設當爾者，自然知自然，一緣相應法。尊彌沙塞作是說：以心不相應智知之。問：若當爾者，則有二智。言有人者一部僧名作是說：人知問人，亦用智知。設不用智知者，初不知盡當有所知。或作是說：第一義無有知若苦若樂。言知眾生者，亦是邪慢，言有苦有樂。問：阿羅漢如今不知者，彼有邪慢耶？或作是說：痛為意轉中間，中間我自生識，彼境界於中得知。問：如意識性，彼非意境界。意識者及意識、識境界，彼非痛性，云何得知？或作是說：見樂見苦，然後得知。問：愚人今亦知。復不有是是苦是樂。或作是說：依身苦樂然後得知。問：如彼依痛已滅，云何得知？是謂依樂痛、是謂依苦痛，猶如彼痛身不自更，云何攝意？或作是說：心已生時緣現在痛。問：心欲生時，未來彼非緣未來，是故彼是境界。或作是說：現在心次第以沒緣彼痛。問：次第痛沒，亦不知苦亦不知樂。云何得知？或作是說：苦樂相憑，無復有餘有苦有樂。彼生意中間，境界生意識境界，彼乘識處自性作識相，有苦有樂，況復眾生隨痛志亂。
> If the pain itself does not change in the present, and past and future pain are likewise neither pleasant nor painful—how can one know "I am suffering" or "I am happy"? The venerable Mahāsāṃghika says: Pain naturally changes itself and naturally knows itself. Question: This is not a metaphor. We do not see anything that turns itself around—just as a severed thing cannot sever itself, a halberd cannot cut itself, a fingertip cannot touch itself. This case is the same. The venerable Dharmaguptaka says: The mind-associated wisdom knows it. Question: If that were so, then it would be natural knowing natural—a single-object associated dharma. The venerable Mahīśāsaka says: It is known by a wisdom not associated with mind. Question: If that were so, then there would be two wisdoms. Some say—a school name—that a person knows. Question: A person knows, and also uses wisdom to know. If wisdom were not used to know, then at first one would not know, and later one should know something. Alternatively, some say: In the ultimate truth, there is no knowing of either suffering or happiness. To speak of "knowing sentient beings" is also arrogant conceit—speaking of having suffering and happiness. Question: If an arhat does not know in this way now, do they have arrogant conceit? Alternatively, some say: Pain turns through the middle of the mind; in the middle, I myself generate consciousness, and its object is known therein. Question: The nature of mental consciousness is such that it is not the object of mind—mental consciousness, and the object of mental consciousness. That is not the nature of pain. How can it be known? Alternatively, some say: Having seen pleasure and seen pain, one then knows. Question: Fools also know now, and yet there is no "this is suffering, this is happiness." Alternatively, some say: Relying on the body's pleasure and pain, one then knows. Question: If, relying on that, the pain has already ceased, how can it be known? This is called relying on pleasant pain, this is called relying on painful pain—just as that pain and body do not change themselves, how can one collect the mind? Alternatively, some say: When the mind has already arisen, it takes present pain as its object. Question: When the mind is about to arise, the future is not yet its object. Therefore, that is its object. Alternatively, some say: The present mind, in sequence, having ceased, takes that pain as its object. Question: If the sequential pain has ceased, one knows neither suffering nor happiness. How can it be known? Alternatively, some say: Suffering and happiness depend on each other; there is no remaining "having suffering and happiness." When the mind arises in the middle, the object arises, the object of mental consciousness—that which rides on the basis of consciousness, with its own nature making the characteristic of consciousness—has suffering and happiness, how much more do sentient beings, following pain, have scattered intentions.
自然智慧者， 人最第一義，志所造痛身， 已生苦樂行。
> One with natural wisdom, is foremost among people in the highest truth, The painful body created by the will, has already produced experiences of suffering and pleasure.
猶如此心，心法內依、外生諸入，以何等故依內生不依外？或作是說：依內生。問：等無礙中依彼生內，然不依外。此義云何？答曰：猶如等無礙，是謂內、是謂外。問：云何此非顛倒耶？如等無礙是謂內、是謂外，如是等無礙已生內非外。或作是說：內有妙事，外無也。此亦是我疑。或作是說：內自性成就，然非外。問：外性亦自成就，如自身色香味。或作是說：內親近，非外也。問：無處所則無近遠，已還境界二俱相近、二俱相依生。或作是說：內生，然非外。問：外亦復生，如自身中色香味。或作是說：內造苦樂。問：外亦造苦樂，如自身中色香味細滑。或作是說：內有上中下，上中下者從心心法生。問：外亦有上中下，上中下者從心心法生。復有異蠅聲興起耳識，復有異大力鼓聲。或作是說：內不牢固。問：次第因緣亦不牢固，欲使彼相依生？或作是說：內是增上。問：外亦是增上。等無礙中內增上非是外增上，此義云何？一切諸有為法各各有增上。或作是說：以內故造苦，然非外，如畫眉點眼而見色。問：如所說倍畫使大而視之，高聲語我當諦聽。或作是說：依內諸入。此師意，所造與心俱有識依四大，彼各各有勝諸根充足。
> Just as with this mind: mental phenomena arise supported inwardly, while the external sense fields are produced outwardly. For what reason do they arise supported inwardly and not outwardly? Some say: They arise supported inwardly. Question: In the case of equal non-obstruction, they arise supported by that inwardly, but not outwardly. What does this mean? Answer: Just as with equal non-obstruction, this is called inner, this is called outer. Question: How is this not inverted? Just as equal non-obstruction is called inner and called outer, so too equal non-obstruction has arisen inwardly, not outwardly. Some say: The inner has subtle qualities, the outer does not. This too is my doubt. Some say: The inner's own-nature is accomplished, but not the outer's. Question: The outer's nature is also self-accomplished, such as one's own body's color, scent, and taste. Some say: The inner is near, not the outer. Question: Where there is no location, there is no near or far. Having returned to the object, both are equally near, both arise mutually dependent. Some say: The inner arises, but not the outer. Question: The outer also arises, such as color, scent, and taste in one's own body. Some say: The inner creates pleasure and pain. Question: The outer also creates pleasure and pain, such as color, scent, taste, and tactile smoothness in one's own body. Some say: The inner has superior, middling, and inferior grades; the superior, middling, and inferior arise from mind and mental phenomena. Question: The outer also has superior, middling, and inferior grades; the superior, middling, and inferior arise from mind and mental phenomena. There is also the sound of a different fly arising as ear-consciousness, and again the sound of a different great drum. Some say: The inner is not firm. Question: Sequential causes and conditions are also not firm. Do you wish to make them arise mutually dependent? Some say: The inner is predominant. Question: The outer is also predominant. In equal non-obstruction, the inner is predominant, not the outer. What does this mean? All conditioned phenomena each have their own predominance. Some say: Because of the inner, pain is created, but not because of the outer — like painting eyebrows and dotting eyes to see forms. Question: As stated, by painting double to make it larger and viewing it, or speaking loudly to me so I should listen carefully. Some say: Depending on the inner sense fields. This teacher's meaning: what is produced together with mind possesses consciousness, depending on the four great elements, and each of these has its respective faculties fully complete.
自性依微妙， 遠近及取捨，下無牢增上， 師意識在後。
> True nature rests in the subtle and profound. Far and near, grasping and letting go— nothing below is more firmly uplifted. The teacher's awareness comes last.
猶如此心心法，內依外緣入因緣生。以何等故，內有壞敗，然非外？或作是說：此現在事，猶如觀彼日影，眼則有敗，然日無咎。問：此亦是我疑。以何等故，眼有敗壞，非日之咎？或作是說：內諸根縛，然非外也。問：外亦諸根縛，如自身中色香味。或作是說：內有吾我想。問：外亦有吾我想。阿羅漢無有吾我想，欲使彼不壞敗耶？或作是說：依內生諸入，然非外也，如上所說。或作是說：內得親近，然非外。問：此無入處，不有入處，安有近遠？已還境界二俱親近，欲使依二生耶？或作是說：內已生，然非外。問：外亦復生，如自身中色香味。或作是說：自性住者，然非外也。問：外亦自性住，如自身中色香味。尊作是說：若自依物轉心心法，居彼住者外內諸入，彼諸法展轉生諸根壞敗也。
> Just as the mind and mental factors arise dependent on internal sense bases and external conditions, coming together through causes and conditions—why is it that the internal is subject to decay, but not the external? Some say: This is a present matter. It is like looking at the sun's reflection—the eye becomes damaged, but the sun is not at fault. Question: This too is my doubt. Why is the eye subject to damage, but not the sun? Some say: The internal faculties are bound, but not the external. Question: The external is also bound to faculties—such as color, smell, and taste within one's own body. Some say: The internal has the notion of "I" and "mine." Question: The external also has the notion of "I" and "mine." Does an Arhat have no notion of "I" and "mine"? Would you then say an Arhat is not subject to decay? Some say: The sense bases arise dependent on the internal, but not the external—as explained above. Some say: The internal is what is intimately approached, but not the external. Question: If there is no sense base, no field of entry, how can there be near or far? If both have already returned to their objects, both are intimate—would you then say they arise dependent on both? Some say: The internal is already arisen, but not the external. Question: The external also arises—such as color, smell, and taste within one's own body. Some say: What has its own nature abiding is internal, but not the external. Question: The external also abides by its own nature—such as color, smell, and taste within one's own body. The Venerable one taught: If mind and mental factors turn toward an object, depending on that object and dwelling there—whether external or internal sense bases—those phenomena arise in mutual dependence, and the faculties decay.
現在縛諸根， 依造有吾我，親近諸所造， 自性是我有。
> Now I bind up all my senses, and based on that, I create a sense of "I" and "mine." Clinging closely to all that is made, I take self-nature to be what I possess.
如尊者舍利弗說：彼諸賢眼內入無有壞敗。見其色光不諦思惟，亦無眼識深思惟者。何者是？或作是說：次第緣是其思惟。問：頗次第緣無耶？答曰：無有不有時，一切識身有現在也。設有，現在彼則生。或作是說：自然因彼是思惟。問曰：頗有時無自然因耶？答曰：無不無時，不常有等。問曰：頗有不等耶？答曰：非不有等。或作是說：大義思惟。問：設無大義者，云何不生識耶？答曰：不生。問：若鞭杖捶打，彼不起識耶？答曰：以境界力，彼識則起，或有不起，如入無想三昧、滅盡三昧，及餘定心者。此亦如上所說。或作是說：發起心者。先已說竟。或作是說：心所憶識則其思惟。此亦是我疑。或作是說：語思惟是其相。問：志思惟無有差別？或作是說：心心法與心相應，是其思惟。問：諸相應法是其思惟，生諸識，然識非思惟。此義云何？或作是說：思惟眾生緣，生識性起諸縛，此之謂也。
> Venerable Shariputra said: For the noble ones, the eye faculty and its internal base are not subject to destruction. When one sees forms and light but does not examine them carefully, there is no eye-consciousness arising from deep reflection either. What is this? Some say: Sequential condition is what reflection means. Question: Is there any case where sequential condition is absent? Answer: There is no time when it is entirely absent. All instances of consciousness have a present moment. If there is a present moment, then it arises accordingly. Some say: Natural causation is what reflection means. Question: Is there any time when natural causation is absent? Answer: There is no time when it is completely absent, nor is there always equality. Question: Is there inequality? Answer: It is not that inequality does not exist. Some say: Reflection means contemplating great meaning. Question: If there is no great meaning, how does consciousness not arise? Answer: It does not arise. Question: If one is beaten with whips and sticks, does consciousness not arise? Answer: Through the power of the object, that consciousness arises. Or it may not arise—as in the attainment of the signless concentration, the cessation attainment, and other states of concentrated mind. This is as explained above. Some say: It is the arousing of the mind. This has already been explained. Some say: What the mind recollects and cognizes is what reflection means. This too is my doubt. Some say: Verbal reflection is its characteristic. Question: Is there no difference between intention and reflection? Some say: Mental factors and states associated with mind—this is what reflection means. Question: Associated factors are what reflection means, giving rise to various consciousnesses, yet consciousness itself is not reflection. What does this mean? Some say: Reflection is the condition of sentient beings; the nature of consciousness arises and gives rise to various fetters. This is what it means.
次第有彼緣， 因大義照明，希望作眾生， 相應及諸智。
> There is a sequence of conditions, Illuminated by the great meaning, The aspiration to benefit beings, Corresponding factors and the wisdoms.
生彼，有思惟，有何差別？或作是說：次第緣是彼思惟，生者為生。問：彼不生思惟？設當生者，無有差別；若不生者，所說非是，思惟非彼眼識得生，此則相違。五事亦復如是。或作是說：彼思惟心法心相應行生。彼思惟生，非心相應行。尊作是說：彼生心心轉法，彼思惟。復次生者自然造法，譬如炎光前後相因生。云何得知炎因光？或作是說：有炎便有光，無光則無炎，於中得知炎因有光。問：若二俱起者：云何得知炎因有光、無光則無炎？答曰？炎所生貌，然非光。問：云何得知炎生光，然非光？答曰：炎所纏縛。問：炎所纏縛？或作是語：若有炎時光隨時應。此亦如上所說。或作是說：炎壞則光壞，是故得知炎因光。問：二俱壞者，云何得知，炎壞則光壞，光壞炎不壞？或作是說：炎熾盛則有光。此亦是我疑。或作是說：合會而有。此亦是我疑。或作是說：炎大光大、炎短光短炎。此亦前已說。或作是說：炎不淨時光則不淨，淨則光淨。此亦是我疑。或作是說：以見光，炎是其本，由是得知炎因光。問：是光義故，求索油炷。欲使油炷因光耶？答曰：不以光故求索油炷，但以光故求索炎也。以炎故求索油炷？或作是說：非，炎故有其光也。相應有光，炎與光最是妙事。問：設二俱生，是謂妙、是謂非妙，此義云何？或作是說：本興炎生光，由是知之，炎因光也。問：此非譬喻，不見炎無光者。答曰：此亦非譬喻，如覺彼炎，更相緣時，時無有光。如其光非其炎，迴轉希望，覺亦不相生，則有慢意。
> When someone is reborn there, does having discursive thought differ from having it not? Some say: sequential conditions are that discursive thought; what is born is born. Question: Is that one not born with discursive thought? If it should be born, there is no difference; if it is not born, what was said is not so—discursive thought is not what enables eye-consciousness to arise, and this is contradictory. The same holds for the five factors. Some say: that discursive thought is a mental factor, a formation associated with mind, and it arises. That discursive thought is born, but it is not a formation associated with mind. The venerable one said: that which is born is a state of mind and mental activity; that is discursive thought. Furthermore, what is born is a natural formative factor, like a flame and its light arising in mutual dependence, one following the other. How can it be known that flame is the cause of light? Some say: where there is flame there is light; without light there is no flame. From this it is known that flame is the cause of light. Question: If both arise together, how can it be known that flame is the cause of light, and that without light there is no flame? Answer: The appearance produced by flame is not light. Question: How can it be known that flame produces light, but not light? Answer: Because flame is what is bound up with it. Question: Bound up with flame? Some say: when there is flame, light follows accordingly. This is also as stated above. Some say: when flame ceases, light ceases; therefore it is known that flame is the cause of light. Question: If both cease together, how can it be known that when flame ceases light ceases, but when light ceases flame does not cease? Some say: when flame blazes brightly, there is light. This too is my doubt. Some say: they arise from conjunction. This too is my doubt. Some say: great flame, great light; short flame, short light. This too has been stated before. Some say: when flame is impure, light is impure; when pure, light is pure. This too is my doubt. Some say: since light is seen, flame is its root; from this it is known that flame is the cause of light. Question: For the sake of this light, one seeks oil and wick. Is it because of light that one seeks oil and wick? Answer: It is not because of light that one seeks oil and wick, but because of light that one seeks flame. Is it because of flame that one seeks oil and wick? Some say: no—it is because of flame that light exists. Light exists dependently; flame and light are the most wondrous of things. Question: If both arise together, which is wondrous and which is not wondrous? What does this mean? Some say: originally flame arises and light is produced; from this it is known that flame is the cause of light. Question: This is not a valid analogy, for one never sees flame without light. Answer: This too is not a valid analogy. When one perceives that flame, and they are mutually conditioned, at that time there is no light. If that light is not that flame, and one turns about in hope, and perception does not produce one another, then there is pride of mind.
各各壞敗相， 希望相應行，達清淨義者， 合會如前說。
> Each thing breaks apart and is destroyed, yet hope drives us on, acting in accord. Those who understand the meaning of purity come together as described before.
猶如六識身，必依過去自然因，志不錯異、緣亦不誤。以何等故，一人非前非後，六識身二俱起？或作是說：一次第緣一識住。問：一者識相應一一識相依。或作是說：一者彼思惟一識則相應住。問：設一識相應，此是一識。或作是說：一相依一識相應住者，一識相應一一識住。
> Just as the six kinds of consciousness necessarily depend on past natural causes, with no deviation in intention and no error in conditions. For what reason do the six kinds of consciousness not arise together in one person, neither before nor after? Some say: One consciousness arises in sequence, one consciousness abides. Question: One consciousness corresponds to each consciousness, each consciousness depends on the other. Some say: When one contemplates, one consciousness accordingly abides. Question: If one consciousness corresponds, this is one consciousness. Some say: When one depends on one consciousness and abides in correspondence, one consciousness corresponds and each consciousness abides.
如一切眾生，必有所趣受報，自作當受。彼有未來現在所造。以何等故，一人不前不後，五有不轉？或作是說：一趣結使熾盛。或作是說：一趣受諸報。尊作是說：識共相應，然後轉一一識，諸轉所造報行皆應識種。以是知之，如無有眾生未曾有而生、有便般泥洹。以何等故眾生無有減？或作是說：汝莫計爾所數耶，有爾所眾生不知減。若不能計者，何以故不知減？或作是說：眾生無有窮，是故不知減。譬如大海水無限量，千瓶往取亦無減；此亦如是。問：大海江河及餘泉源皆往趣，欲使眾生本無今有耶？答曰：於異方剎土眾生來到此間。尊作是說：於彼剎眾生無有減。此義云何？有眾生遊異方界，執賢聖道出界到界。志性云何？有何等希望？當作是觀。猶如此三聚眾生有損無益。以何等故，三聚眾生不知有減？或作是說：汝為計算爾所數耶？爾所眾生無有減。若不數者，誰知有減？或作是說：無量所造眾生。此亦如上所說。尊作是說：在處在處無有滅。此事云何？如阿毘曇說：必有世不疑，有邪聚當言滅盡。設爾者，此義不然，如今有此盡。
> If all sentient beings must go to some destination and receive the karmic results of their own actions, then each receives what they themselves have done. Beings have actions they have made in the future and in the present. For what reason does one person neither go forward nor fall behind, and yet does not move on from the five realms of existence? Some say it is because the afflictions binding one to a single destination burn fiercely. Some say it is because one destination receives all karmic results. The venerable one said: Consciousness arises in mutual correspondence, and only then does each consciousness turn and move on. All the karmic formations produced by these movements should be understood as seeds of consciousness. From this we know that no sentient being exists who was never born and yet later enters nirvana. For what reason is there no decrease in the number of sentient beings? Some say: Do not calculate in terms of such numbers—there are that many sentient beings, and no one knows of any decrease. If they cannot be counted, how can one know there is no decrease? Some say: Sentient beings are without limit; therefore no decrease is known. It is like the waters of the great ocean: they are immeasurable, and even if a thousand jars are filled from them, there is still no decrease. It is the same here. Question: The great ocean, the rivers, and all the other springs and sources all flow toward it—do you mean to say that sentient beings originally did not exist and now come into existence? Answer: Sentient beings come here from other realms and lands. The venerable one said: In those lands, sentient beings do not decrease. What does this mean? There are sentient beings who wander to other worlds, holding to the noble and holy path, going out from one realm and arriving in another. What is their disposition? What hopes do they have? This should be contemplated. It is just as these beings of the three groups suffer loss and gain no benefit. For what reason do sentient beings of the three groups not know any decrease? Some say: Are you calculating in terms of such numbers? Those sentient beings do not decrease. If one does not count them, who knows whether there is decrease? Some say: Sentient beings made by the immeasurable. This too is as stated above. The venerable one said: In whatever place, in whatever place, there is no extinction. What does this mean? As the Abhidharma says: There must be a world without doubt, and there is a fixed group of wrong views that should be called utterly extinguished. If that were so, this meaning would not hold, since even now there is such extinction.
如此三世，一世中未來有損無益，一世中過去有增無損。以何等故未來世無減、過去有滿？或作是說：汝計爾所數耶？過去未來有爾所數耶？知有減。若不算計者，誰知有減？或作是說：過去已壞、未來未生。或作是說：過去未來無有處所。或作是說：過去未來無有限量。世尊作是說：若二法照明。何以故？世無處所，事相應緣生，已生當壞。是其事眾生增減，乃是聖人存而不論者也。故曰：誰計豆而不說也。本無今有，若有斯言，則亦有咎。故皆抑之耳。佛止梵志，亦其事也。聖人之教，進覺號也，眾生無棄形而上事也。如入寂靜三昧，無量無邊福，彼非盡淨。彼三昧為緣何等？或作是說：無量邊福是其緣。問：今不盡淨。答曰：彼不自知。問：設自知者，彼緣何等？若淨無量，彼非邪智耶？或作是說：不淨謂之，淨訓心是義。問：若淨言淨者訓心，不常無常解說訓心是義。或作是說：一切寂靜，此之謂也；彼亦如是。問：如今入第二禪，是時眼盡見黃，是故一時自相壞敗？或作是說：淨是彼緣。問：誰無此三昧？答曰：思惟無空缺處有是三昧。問：一切三昧亦無空缺處處，欲使一切三昧作寂靜三昧耶？答曰：非一切自相相受，非一切造無量相。若自相受無量相者，彼是行人三昧。尊作是說：淨是其緣。彼以此相應，如緣然薪起烟。及諸因緣各相依而生淨，如是起諸相應及諸因緣。當作是觀。彼三昧當言不順、當言順？如上五事無異。尊作是說：當言非不順，漸漸近順。
> Thus, regarding the three times: within one time, the future involves loss without benefit, while within one time, the past involves increase without loss. For what reason is there no decrease in the future and fullness in the past? Some say: Do you calculate that many? Are the past and future reckoned as that many? Know that there is decrease. If one does not calculate, who knows there is decrease? Some say: The past is already destroyed, the future not yet arisen. Some say: The past and future have no location. Some say: The past and future have no limit. The World-Honored One said: If two dharmas illuminate. Why? The world has no location; phenomena arise in dependence on conditions, and what has arisen will perish. This is the matter. The increase and decrease of sentient beings is something the sages preserve but do not discuss. Therefore it is said: Who calculates beans and does not speak? Originally nonexistent and now existent—if such a statement is made, then there is also fault. Thus all are suppressed. The Buddha's stopping of the Brahmin is also this matter. The teaching of the sages is to advance the name of awakening; sentient beings do not abandon metaphysical matters. Like entering the trance of stillness, with immeasurable and boundless merit—that is not entirely pure. What conditions does that trance rely on? Some say: Immeasurable boundless merit is its condition. Question: Now it is not entirely pure. Answer: It does not know itself. Question: If it knew itself, what would it rely on? If purity is immeasurable, is that not wrong knowledge? Some say: Impurity is called purity; purity means training the mind—this is the meaning. Question: If purity is spoken of as purity and training the mind is the meaning, then constant and impermanent explanations of training the mind are the meaning. Some say: All is still—this is what is meant; that is also so. Question: Now if one enters the second meditation, at that time the eye sees all as yellow—is it therefore that at one time one's own characteristics are destroyed? Some say: Purity is its condition. Question: Who lacks this trance? Answer: Contemplation with no gaps anywhere has this trance. Question: All trances also have no gaps anywhere—do you wish to make all trances the trance of stillness? Answer: Not all receive their own characteristics; not all create immeasurable characteristics. If one receives immeasurable characteristics through one's own characteristics, that is the practitioner's trance. The Honored One said: Purity is its condition. That, in accordance with this, is like firewood being burned by a condition and smoke arising. And all causes and conditions, each relying on one another, arise as purity—thus arise all correspondences and all causes and conditions. One should contemplate in this way. Should that trance be called unfavorable or favorable? As in the above five matters, there is no difference. The Honored One said: It should be called not unfavorable, gradually approaching favorable.
食謂觀人，然食非人。彼愚觀者為緣何等？或作是說：食是其緣。問：彼非愚觀、非思惟食。設餘思惟食者，復有餘緣。欲使寂靜無寂靜緣耶？或作是說：人是其緣。問：食非是人。答曰：如彼不自知。問：設自知者，吾我是緣耶？復次彼愚觀者，食此處所，希望求索。彼愚觀當言順、當言不順？如上二事說。尊作是說：當言順，味愛是對。若依骨瑣起若干想，自知我身骨瑣，亦復如是。彼想為緣何等？或作是說：骨瑣即是其緣。問：身非骨瑣。答曰：此亦骨瑣，皮肉所纏。或作是說：自身是緣，此骨瑣皮肉所纏。問：彼想非身，若觀骨瑣想則緣自身，欲使青緣黃色耶？復次義想緣彼自身，分別希望彼相，當言順、當言不順？如上二事說。尊作是說：當言順，欲使有對。
> Considering the person who observes food, though food is not the person. What condition does that foolish observer rely on? Some say: food is the condition. Question: That one is not a foolish observer, does not contemplate food. If someone else contemplates food, there must be another condition. Could it be that one wishes to make stillness without a condition for stillness? Some say: the person is the condition. Question: Food is not the person. Answer: It is as that one does not know oneself. Question: If one knows oneself, is "I" and "mine" the condition? Furthermore, that foolish observer, in regard to this food, hopes and seeks after it. Should that foolish observer be said to conform or not conform? As stated in the above two matters. The Venerable said: One should say it conforms; craving for flavor is the counterpart. If depending on the skeleton one arouses various perceptions, knowing one's own body to be a skeleton, it is likewise thus. What condition is that perception based on? Some say: the skeleton itself is the condition. Question: The body is not the skeleton. Answer: This too is the skeleton, wrapped in skin and flesh. Some say: one's own self is the condition, this skeleton wrapped in skin and flesh. Question: That perception is not the body; if one contemplates the skeleton perception, then it is conditioned by one's own self—would one wish to make blue the condition for yellow? Furthermore, the perception of meaning is conditioned by that self, discriminating and hoping for that sign—should one say it conforms or not conforms? As stated in the above two matters. The Venerable said: One should say it conforms; one wishes to make it have a counterpart.
第四偈品竟。
> The Fourth Chapter on Verses is complete.
痛及二心， 炎影光減， 未曾有聚，青食骨瑣。
> Pain reaches even the two minds. The blaze's glow fades. Never before has there been such gathering— green food, bone fragments.
## 尊婆須蜜論卷第一
> Treatise on the Venerable Vasumitra, Volume 1