---
title: "阿毘曇毘婆沙論 · 4"
description: "阿毘曇毘婆沙論由浮陀跋摩与道泰等译师于北凉时期合作汉译，是部派佛教说一切有部的重要论典。该论以广释《发智论》为核心，系统阐述诸法实有、因果业报等教义，涵盖修行道次第与禅定智慧理论。作为阿毘达磨文献的集大成之作，它完整保存了印度早期佛教的哲学体系，为研究部派佛教思想提供了经典依据，并对后世唯识学、中观派产生深远影响，在大乘佛教发展中具有承前启后的学术地位。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwzy02p00r9jl04cdrragi1"
---

## 阿毘曇毘婆沙論卷第八

> Abhidharma Vibhasha Shastra, Volume 8

迦旃延子造　五百羅漢釋

> Katyayana's Treatise, Commentary by Five Hundred Arhats

北涼天竺沙門浮陀跋摩共道泰等譯

> Translated by Buddhavarman and Dao Tai, Northern Liang

### 雜犍度智品之四

> Miscellaneous Khandhaka: Wisdom Section 4

當言一眼見色，乃至廣說。

> When it is said that "seeing forms with a single eye" and so forth, it is extensively explained.

問曰：何以作此論？

> Question: Why compose this treatise?

答曰：為止併義者意故。如尊者曇摩多羅說：眼不見色識見色。為止如是意故，言眼見非識見。如犢子部說：一眼見色，非二眼一時見。所以者何？以相遠故、以捷疾故，人謂兩眼一時見色。問曰：若以相遠不得一時見者，身根亦相遠，如兩臂而能一時覺觸生於身識，兩眼亦應爾。是故為止併義者意而作此論。復次為斷人疑意故而作此論。眾生兩眼相去，或半指一指、二三四指、半尺一尺、一肘一尋、半拘盧舍、一拘盧舍、半由旬、一由旬、二三四由旬乃至百由旬。如大海中有眾生身，或百由旬、或百四十由旬、或二百一十由旬。如色界阿迦膩吒天，身長萬六千由旬。如是等眾生，兩眼相去甚遠。有如此事，人生疑心：為二識一時生兩眼中、為一眼各有一識耶？為一一識眼中生已復生一眼中、為一識分為二分在兩眼中生、為如橫木通兩眼中耶？若當二識一時生兩眼中者，云何不有二心過？若當一眼中生已復生一眼中者，云何不有前後剎那過？若當一識分為二分在二眼中者，云何一識非是分法，若依身法是名身識、若依眼生是名眼識？若當如橫木通兩眼中者，云何一識不亦是身識亦是眼識耶？而此五識所依各異、所行識界亦異，一識二依事不應爾。如是二識一時生兩眼中、一識生一眼中已復生一眼中、一識分為二分在兩眼中、如橫木通兩眼中，皆不應爾。非不依二眼生於一識，而能分別極遠微細之色。如此皆是甚深微妙難知之法。欲說甚深微妙難知之法故，而作此論。

> \*\*Response:\*\* To counter those who hold erroneous views. As the venerable Dharmatrāta said, "The eye does not see forms; consciousness sees forms." To counter this kind of thinking, we say the eye sees, not consciousness. The Vātsīputrīyas claim that one eye sees forms, not both eyes at once. Why? Because the eyes are too far apart and because of speed, people assume both eyes see a form simultaneously. \*\*Question:\*\* If the distance prevents simultaneous seeing, what about the sensations of touch—the body's sense organs are also far apart, yet both arms can simultaneously feel contact and give rise to body consciousness. The same should apply to both eyes. Thus, to counter the views of those who conflate these matters, this treatise is composed. Furthermore, to remove doubt in beings, this treatise is composed. Beings' two eyes may be separated by half a finger, a finger, two, three, or four fingers, half a foot, a foot, a cubit, a fathom, half a krośa, one krośa, half a yojana, one yojana, two, three, or four yojanas, up to a hundred yojanas. In the great ocean, beings' bodies can be a hundred yojanas, one hundred forty yojanas, or two hundred ten yojanas. In the form realm, the Akaniṣṭha gods are sixteen thousand yojanas tall. For beings like these, the distance between their eyes is vast. Such facts give rise to doubt: - Do two consciousnesses arise simultaneously in both eyes? - Does each eye have its own consciousness? - Does one consciousness, arising in one eye, then arise in the other eye? - Does one consciousness split into two parts, one in each eye? - Or does it stretch across both eyes like a crossbeam? If two consciousnesses arise simultaneously in both eyes, is that not the fault of having two minds? If consciousness arises in one eye and then the other, is that not the fault of sequential moments? If one consciousness splits into two parts for two eyes, how can consciousness be divisible? If it depends on the body, it is "body consciousness"; if it depends on the eye, it is "eye consciousness." If it stretches across both eyes like a crossbeam, how can this one consciousness be both body consciousness and eye consciousness? Since each of the five consciousnesses relies on different bases and operates in different realms of existence, it is impossible for one consciousness to have two bases. Thus, all these possibilities—two consciousnesses arising simultaneously in both eyes, one consciousness arising in one eye and then the next, one consciousness splitting into two parts for two eyes, or stretching across both eyes like a crossbeam—are all incorrect. Yet, it is impossible for a single consciousness not relying on both eyes to fully discern extremely distant or subtle forms. These are all extremely profound, subtle, and difficult-to-understand truths. To explain such profound, subtle, and difficult-to-understand truths, this treatise is composed.

問曰：云何一識依二眼生？

> Question: How can a single consciousness arise dependent on two eyes?

答曰：是識所依法故。兩眼相去雖遠，能為一識而作所依，俱是眼識所依法故。設有百眼而為一識作依者，亦無有過。如百水精器，一面往觀則有百面像現，彼亦如是。雖是二依生於一識行於境界，當言一眼見色，乃至廣說。答曰：當言兩眼見色。應說所以令世人生信。何以故當言兩眼見色、不當言一眼見色？如合一眼，不生淨眼識，則不能廣見境界，於境界不明不了不淨。若開兩眼，則生淨眼識，則能廣見境界，於境界明了清淨。設如合一眼不生淨眼識、不廣見境界，乃至廣說。開兩眼亦不生淨識、不廣見境界，乃至廣說者。不當言兩眼見色，但一眼見色，生不淨識、不廣見境界，乃至廣說。若開兩眼，生淨眼識、能廣見境界，乃至廣說。是故當言兩眼見色，不當言一眼見色。合者，若以手、以衣、以葉諸餘障眼具。壞者，若瞟瞖、若赤膜、若眼雲、若生白膜。覆者，為烟塵垢所覆。滅者，若爛敗、若虫噉、若墮若破、若消涸、若挑出、若自脫。如眼色，耳聲鼻香亦如是。如所依淨，識則淨；所依不淨，識則不淨。實義淨者，善識是淨，染污是不淨。或有眼淨識不淨，或有識淨眼不淨，或有眼識俱淨，或有眼識俱不淨。眼淨識不淨者，如眼無諸障瞖生染污識。識淨眼不淨者，如眼有障瞖生善識。眼識俱淨者，如眼無障瞖生善識。眼識俱不淨者，如眼有障瞖生染污識。

> Answer: Because the eye base serves as the support for visual consciousness. Although the two eyes are far apart, they can both act as the support for a single visual consciousness, since they are both the base for that consciousness. Even if there were a hundred eyes serving as a support for a single consciousness, it would also be unproblematic. Just as if you have a hundred crystal vessels and look at them from one side, a hundred reflections appear—the same principle applies here. Even though two bases produce a single consciousness that operates in the sensory field, it should be said that one pair of eyes sees forms, and so forth, in detail. Answer: It should be said that two eyes see forms. We must explain why so that people in the world can believe it. Why should it be said that two eyes see forms, and not that one eye sees forms? When you close one eye, no clear visual consciousness arises, so you cannot broadly perceive the sensory field; your perception of the field is unclear, not distinct, not pure. When you open both eyes, clear visual consciousness arises, and you can broadly perceive the sensory field with clarity and purity. If it were said that closing one eye does not produce clear visual consciousness and does not allow broad perception of the sensory field (and so forth in detail), and that opening both eyes also does not produce clear consciousness or allow broad perception of the sensory field (and so forth in detail), then it would not be correct to say that two eyes see forms; instead, one eye would see forms, producing unclear consciousness and preventing broad perception (and so forth). But when you open both eyes, you produce clear visual consciousness and can broadly perceive the sensory field (and so forth). Therefore, it should be said that two eyes see forms, not one eye. "Closed" means blocked by hand, cloth, leaf, or other obstructions to the eye. "Damaged" refers to being cross-eyed, having a cataract, a growth, cloudiness, or a white film. "Covered" means obscured by smoke, dust, or dirt. "Destroyed" refers to decay, being eaten by insects, falling out, breaking, drying up, being gouged out, or falling off naturally. The same applies to the ear and sound, the nose and smell, and so forth. Just as when the base is pure, the consciousness is pure; when the base is impure, the consciousness is impure. In terms of ultimate meaning, "pure" means that wholesome consciousness is pure, while defiled consciousness is impure. Sometimes the eyes are pure but the consciousness is impure, sometimes the consciousness is pure but the eyes are impure, sometimes both eyes and consciousness are pure, and sometimes both are impure. "Eyes pure, consciousness impure" means that although the eyes have no obstructions, a defiled consciousness arises. "Consciousness pure, eyes impure" means that although the eyes have obstructions, a wholesome consciousness arises. "Both pure" means that when the eyes have no obstructions, a wholesome consciousness arises. "Both impure" means that when the eyes have obstructions, a defiled consciousness arises.

問曰：何故眼耳鼻有二處所，而舌身無兩處所耶？答曰：如此諸根，以莊嚴身。若有二舌，是鄙陋事，世所嫌笑：云何此人而有二舌？如似毒蛇。若有二身，亦是鄙陋，為世所笑：云何一人而有二身？如孿子併。

> Question: Why do the eyes, ears, and nose have two sets each, while the tongue and body do not? Answer: These senses all serve to adorn the body. Having two tongues would be an ugly and unsightly thing, something the world would mock and laugh at—saying, "How can this person have two tongues? Like a venomous snake." Having two bodies would also be shameful, provoking ridicule in the world: "How can one person have two bodies? Like conjoined twins."

問曰：以何等故但有二眼二鼻二耳，而不多耶？

> Question: Why is it that we have only two eyes, two nostrils, and two ears, and not more than that?

答曰：如此諸根，以莊嚴身。若有多眼，廣說如上。復有說者，若有多眼則無所益。所以者何？如二眼見色則淨，多亦無益。以無益故，唯有二眼。耳鼻亦應如是說。

> Answer: The sense organs are meant to adorn the body. The previous passage already explains what multiple eyes would mean. Some teachers say: Having more eyes would be pointless. Why? Two eyes see forms clearly; more would not improve anything. Since they would serve no purpose, beings are born with two eyes. The same logic applies to ears and nose.

問曰：何故二眼二鼻二耳處所，唯說一界一入一根？

> Question: Why is it that for the faculties of sight, smell, and hearing, each has two organs (two eyes, two nostrils, two ears), yet in the teachings we speak of only one element, one sense organ, and one corresponding sense field?

答曰：行一境界、一識所依、以作一事，故說一界，乃至廣說。

> A reply: When the mind abides in one state, supported by one consciousness, and is engaged in one activity, it is called a single realm. This is explained in detail up to the broader teachings.

問曰：為眼見色、為識見、為識相應慧見、為和合見？若眼見者，無識時亦應見，若與餘識合時亦應見。若識見者，識即見性亦是識性。若識相應慧見者，耳識相應慧亦應見應聞。若和合見者，未甞不和合。

> Someone asked: Is it the eye that sees forms, or is it consciousness that sees? Is it the wisdom associated with consciousness that sees, or is it a combination of these that sees? If the eye itself could see, then even without consciousness, it should still be able to see, and when it is connected with other consciousnesses, it should also be able to see. If it is consciousness that sees, then consciousness itself would be both the faculty of seeing and the nature of consciousness. If it is the wisdom associated with consciousness that sees, then the wisdom associated with ear-consciousness should also be able to see and hear. If it is a combination that sees, then it has never been not a combination.

答曰：眼見色，而必須識。眼有二種：一、報眼；二、長養眼。耳鼻舌身亦如是。色入有三種：有長養、報、依。香味觸亦如是。聲有二種：有長養、有依。意入有三種：報、依、剎那。彼苦法忍相應心名曰剎那。法入有四種：有報、依、剎那、物體。物體者，以有無為法故。

> Answer: When the eye sees a form, it necessarily requires consciousness. There are two types of eyes: karmic eyes and developmental eyes. The same applies to the ears, nose, tongue, and body. Form as an object of perception has three types: developmental, karmic, and foundational. The same is true for smells, tastes, and tactile objects. Sound has two types: developmental and foundational. The mind-object as a perception has three types: karmic, foundational, and momentary. The mind associated with the tolerance of the truth of suffering is called "momentary." The mental object (Dharma) has four types: karmic, foundational, momentary, and substantial. "Substantial" indicates that it encompasses both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena.

問曰：頗有唯報眼、無長養眼；頗有唯長養眼、非報眼？

> Question: Is there only the karmic-result eye without the cultivated eye? Is there only the cultivated eye without the karmic-result eye?

答曰：無有。有報眼無長養眼者，如人重人、如牆重牆。報眼、長養眼亦如是。頗唯有長養眼無報眼耶？答曰：得天眼者是。或時長養眼有勢力非報眼，或時報眼有勢力非長養眼，或時長養眼、報眼有勢力，或時長養眼有勢力非報眼者，如少年時眼。或時報眼有勢力非長養眼者，如老病時，彼長養力少。或時長養眼、報眼俱有勢力者，如中年時。或有眾生，長養眼有勢力非報眼，或有報眼有勢力非長養眼，或有長養眼報眼俱有勢力，或有長養眼報眼俱無勢力。長養眼有勢力非報眼者，如富貴人本眼性劣，以種種所須令眼明淨。或報眼有勢力非長養眼者，如田作人，無種種所須之具，本眼自淨。或有長養眼報眼俱有勢力者，如富貴人有種種所須之具，本眼明淨。或長養眼報眼俱無勢力者，如田作人，無種種所須之具，本眼不明淨。

> Answer: No. There are karmic eyes and nourishment eyes that are not the same, as with a person piled upon another person, or a wall built upon a wall. The karmic eye and the nourishment eye are similar. Does one have only a nourishment eye and no karmic eye? Answer: The one who obtains the divine eye is such a case. Sometimes a nourishment eye has power but the karmic eye does not, or sometimes a karmic eye has power but the nourishment eye does not, or sometimes both the nourishment eye and the karmic eye have power. When a nourishment eye has power but the karmic eye does not: as in the eyes of youth. When a karmic eye has power but the nourishment eye does not: as in old age or illness, where the nourishment eye's power is weak. When both the nourishment eye and the karmic eye have power: as in middle age. Among living beings, some have a nourishment eye with power but the karmic eye without, some have a karmic eye with power but the nourishment eye without, some have both the nourishment eye and the karmic eye with power, and some have both without power. When a nourishment eye has power but the karmic eye does not: as with wealthy people whose original eyes are weak, but who use various needed items to make their eyes clear and bright. When a karmic eye has power but the nourishment eye does not: as with field laborers, who lack various necessary items, yet their original eyes are naturally clear. When both the nourishment eye and the karmic eye have power: as with wealthy people who have various necessary items and whose original eyes are naturally clear and bright. When both the nourishment eye and the karmic eye lack power: as with field laborers, who lack various necessary items, and whose original eyes are not clear or bright.

問曰：為長養眼見色多、為報眼見色多？

> Question: Does the eye see forms more for nourishment, or more as a result of past actions?

答曰：長養眼見多。所以者何？天眼是長養眼故。或時長養眼見淨好非報眼，或時報眼見淨好非長養眼，或長養眼報眼俱見淨好，或時長養眼報眼俱見非淨好。

> Answer: "The cultivated eye can see more. Why is this? The heavenly eye is a cultivated eye. Sometimes the cultivated eye sees what is pure and good, not the karmic eye. Sometimes the karmic eye sees what is pure and good, not the cultivated eye. Sometimes both the cultivated and karmic eyes see what is pure and good. Sometimes both the cultivated and karmic eyes see what is not pure and good."

問曰：為善行報眼見淨好、為不善行報眼見淨好？

> Question: When one does good deeds, does one see a pure and pleasant result with their own eyes? When one does bad deeds, does one see a pure and pleasant result with their own eyes?

答曰：總而言之，善行報眼見淨好。所以者何？善行報得人，如佛、辟支佛、轉輪聖王，皆是人故；不善行報是畜生，是故總而言之，善行報眼見淨好。以身言之，或有象見勝人，如人眼雖是善行報而有障瞖，畜生眼雖是不善行報而無障瞖。

> Overall, the result of good actions is seen in clear and beautiful eyesight. Why? Because those who receive the reward of good deeds are human beings—such as Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Wheel-Turning Kings are all human. The result of bad actions is being born as an animal. Therefore, in general terms, the visible outcome of good deeds is pure and good eyes. However, speaking in terms of the physical body itself, there are cases where an animal's eyes may be superior to a human's. For example, even when a human's eyes are a result of good actions, they may have cataracts or cloudiness, while an animal's eyes, though a result of bad actions, may be clear and unobstructed.

問曰：眼微塵為次第傍布、為前後重生？若次第傍布，云何不散壞？若前後重生，云何前者不障於後？

> Question: Regarding the tiny particles that make up the eye, do they arrange themselves side by side in a specific order, or do they continuously re-form one after the other? If they are placed side by side, why don’t they fall apart? If they re-form one after the other, why doesn’t the earlier one obstruct the later one?

答曰：或有說者，次第傍布。於黑瞳子上對諸境界，猶如器中盛水以糠坌上，亦如阿閦花子次第傍生，眼微塵亦如是。

> Reply: Some have explained that it is arranged sequentially and adjacently. On the black pupil, facing various objects, it is like a vessel filled with water with chaff sprinkled on its surface, or like the seeds of the Akṣobhya flower growing side by side in order; the subtle particles of the eye are likewise.

問曰：若然者，云何不散壞耶？

> If that is the case, then why does it not disintegrate?

答曰：薄膜覆故而不散壞。復有說者，前後重生於黑瞳子上。

> It is said: Because a thin membrane covers them, they do not scatter or break apart. Others explain: They are reborn successively on the black pupil of the eye.

問曰：若然者，前者云何不障於後？

> Question: If that is the case, then why doesn't the earlier moment hinder the later one?

答曰：造色性不相障礙。復有說者，明淨色不相障礙，猶如秋時潢水明淨不障，細鍼墮底猶故可見。明淨色不相障礙亦復如是。耳微塵住耳孔內、鼻微塵住鼻孔內，此三根遶頭如著花鬘。舌微塵依舌，如半月像，其中間空猶如毛許是身根分，餘者悉是舌微塵，身微塵次第而立。復有說者，眼微塵其形如銅杵頭；耳微塵在耳孔內，其形如燈器；鼻微塵在鼻孔中，其形如爪甲；舌微塵其形如偃月刀；身微塵其形如大刀；男根微塵其形如指㧺；女根微塵其形如鼓框。以如是等因緣，是佛經說相似喻。眼根微塵，或時是分、或時是彼分、或時是一分、或時是彼一分。耳根鼻根舌根微塵亦如是。身根微塵，或時是彼分、或時是一分、或時是彼一分，無有全是分時。

> The answer is: Matter with form does not hinder each other. Others explain that clear, pure matter does not hinder each other—just like in autumn, when clear, pure pond water does not obstruct even a fine needle dropped to the bottom, which remains visible. Clear, pure matter not hindering each other works the same way. Ear particles reside within the ear canal, nose particles within the nasal passages; these three sense faculties surround the head like a garland of flowers. Tongue particles lie along the tongue, shaped like a half-moon, with a gap about the size of a single hair that belongs to the body sense faculty—the rest being tongue particles. Body particles are arranged sequentially. Others explain: The particles of the eye faculty are shaped like the head of a copper pestle. Ear particles within the ear canal are shaped like an oil lamp vessel. Nose particles within the nasal passages are shaped like a fingernail. Tongue particles are shaped like a curved sword. Body particles are shaped like a large sword. Male organ particles are shaped like a finger sheath. Female organ particles are shaped like a drum frame. With such examples, these are the analogies taught in the Buddha's scriptures. As for the particles of the eye faculty: sometimes they are the 'part', sometimes they are the 'counterpart', sometimes they are a 'portion', sometimes they are a 'counter-portion'. The same applies to the particles of the ear, nose, and tongue faculties. For the particles of the body faculty: sometimes they are the 'counterpart', sometimes they are a 'portion', sometimes they are a 'counter-portion'; there is never a time when they are entirely the 'part'.

問曰：若無全是分時者，如入冷池水時、如入熱鑊湯時、如地獄中十三種猛焰遶身之時，此豈非是耶？

> Question: If there is no such thing as a "full" or "partial" moment, then when someone steps into a cold pool, or steps into a hot cauldron of boiling water, or when thirteen kinds of raging flames surround the body in hell—aren't these clearly experiences of suffering?

答曰：如此之時，故是彼分。所以者何？若身根微塵盡能生身識者則散壞。色入有二十一種，所謂青、黃、赤、白、長短、方圓、適不適、高下、光影、明闇、煙、雲、塵、霧、虛空色。

> Answer: At such a time, it belongs to that category. Why is that? If every extremely fine particle of the body's sensory faculty could generate body consciousness, then the body would disintegrate and collapse. The sense object "form" has twenty-one kinds: blue, yellow, red, white, long, short, square, round, pleasant, unpleasant, high, low, light, shadow, brightness, darkness, smoke, cloud, dust, mist, and empty space.

問曰：為緣一色能生眼識、為緣多色能生眼識？若緣一色能生眼識者，此云何通？如說：眼能緣五色。若緣多色能生眼識者，云何不有二覺意？有二覺意則有多體。

> Question: Does eye-consciousness arise based on a single visible form, or based on multiple visible forms? If it arises based on a single form, how can we explain the teaching that "the eye can perceive five colors"? If it arises based on multiple forms, why doesn’t it give rise to dual awareness? For if there were dual awareness, there would be multiple entities involved.

答曰：緣一種色，能生眼識。

> Answer: A single visible object is sufficient to give rise to visual consciousness.

問曰：若然者，能緣五色云何通？尊者和須蜜答曰：於緣捷疾故，佛說俱緣。如旋火輪而實不匝，以捷疾故而似輪像；彼亦如是。尊者佛陀提婆說曰：於色不決了，故言俱緣。如觀樹林葉有種種諸色；彼亦如是。復有說者，如五色能生一色，見一色時名見五色。復次若諸色集聚，則見多色生一識，若諸色別異，則見一色生一識。

> Question: If so, how can one consciousness simultaneously perceive all five colors? The Venerable Vasumitra replied: Because of its swiftness with conditions, the Buddha spoke of simultaneous contact. It is like a whirling firebrand—though not actually tracing a full circle, its speed creates the illusion of a wheel. So it is with the mind. The Venerable Buddhadeva said: Because it does not clearly distinguish among colors, it is said to perceive them simultaneously. It is like looking at a forest of trees, whose leaves come in many colors—so it is. Still others say: When five colors produce a single perceived color, seeing that one color is called seeing the five colors. Furthermore, when various colors are gathered together, a single consciousness arises seeing many colors; when colors are distinct, a single consciousness arises seeing a single color.

聲入有八種：有內大因聲、有外大因聲。內大因聲有二種：有適意、不適意。外大因聲亦如是。有眾生數、有非眾生數。眾生數有二種：適意、不適意。非眾生數亦如是。為緣一聲能生耳識、為緣多聲能生耳識？若但緣一聲能生耳識者，如今一時能聞五樂聲，亦聞多人誦聲。若緣多聲生耳識者，云何不有二心？乃至廣說。

> There are eight types of sound (śabda): sounds arising from internal major causes, and sounds arising from external major causes. Internal major causes produce two kinds: pleasant and unpleasant. External major causes also produce two kinds. These further divide into sounds produced by sentient beings and sounds produced by non-sentient beings. Sounds from sentient beings have two types: pleasant and unpleasant; likewise for sounds from non-sentient beings. Does a single sound produce ear-consciousness (śrotra-vijñāna), or do multiple sounds produce ear-consciousness? If a single sound alone can produce ear-consciousness, then why do we simultaneously hear the sounds of five musical instruments or the chanting of many people? If multiple sounds produce ear-consciousness, then why are there not two minds? This is explained at length.

答曰：應作是說：緣一聲生耳識。

> Response: It should be explained: The ear-consciousness arises in dependence upon a single sound.

問曰：若然者，不於一時聞五樂聲及多人誦聲耶？

> A question: If that's the case, then wouldn't it be impossible to hear the sounds of five kinds of music and the chanting of many people at the same time?

答曰：五樂聲、多人誦聲同是一聲，能生耳識。復有說者，若諸聲聚集，則緣多聲能生一識。若聲別異，則緣一聲而生一識。

> Response: The answer says: The sounds of music and the voices of many people chanting are fundamentally the same—they all give rise to auditory perception. Some further explain: When various sounds come together, the mind perceives them as a single sound. But if each sound is distinct, then each sound gives rise to its own separate perception.

香入有四種：有好、有惡。好有二種：有等、有增減。惡香亦爾。

> Fragrance comes in four types: pleasant and unpleasant. Pleasant fragrances are of two kinds: balanced and those that increase or decrease. Unpleasant fragrances are likewise.

問曰：為緣一香能生鼻識、為緣多香能生鼻識？若緣一香生鼻識者，如今一時能嗅百種和香。若緣多香生鼻識者，云何不有二心？乃至廣說。

> Question: Can the nose-consciousness arise from perceiving a single scent, or from perceiving multiple scents? If it arises from a single scent, how is it that we can smell a hundred different blended fragrances at once? If it arises from multiple scents, then why don't we have two (or more) separate moments of consciousness at the same time? And so on, with this line of reasoning.

答曰：應作是說：緣一香能生鼻識。

> Answer: It should be stated thus: Depending on a single scent, nose-consciousness can arise.

問曰：若然者，不能一時嗅百種香耶？

> Question: If that is so, wouldn’t it be impossible to smell a hundred different fragrances at once?

答曰：或有說者，百種香能生一種香，生於鼻識。如是說者好。如多香聚集，則嗅多香生於一識。若香別異，則嗅一香能生一識。

> Answer: Some say that a hundred types of fragrance can produce one kind of scent that gives rise to nasal consciousness. This explanation is fine. When many fragrances are gathered together, smelling them produces a single consciousness. But if the fragrances are distinct, then smelling each fragrance separately will produce a separate consciousness.

味入有六種：甜、酢、醎、辛、苦、澹。

> Taste enters through six kinds: sweet, sour, salty, spicy, bitter, and bland.

問曰：為緣一味能生舌識、為緣多味能生舌識？若緣一味能生舌識者，如今一時能嘗百味歡喜丸等。若緣多味能生舌識者，云何不有二心？乃至廣說。

> Question: Does the tongue-consciousness arise in relation to a single taste, or in relation to multiple tastes? If it arises in relation to a single taste, then how can we taste a hundred flavors at once, like in a happiness pill? If it arises in relation to multiple tastes, then why doesn't a second mind arise? And so on.

答曰：應作是說：緣於一味能生舌識。問曰：若然者，不能一時嘗百味歡喜丸耶？

> Answer: It should be said: Based on a single flavor, the tongue-consciousness arises. Question: If that is so, can one not taste the hundred flavors of a feast-pill all at once?

答曰：或有說者，百味歡喜丸能生一種味，生於舌識。如是說者好。如多味聚集，則嘗多味生於一識。若味別異，則嘗一味生於一識。

> Response: Someone might say: "A pill blended from a hundred flavors can produce a single taste that arises in the tongue-consciousness." This explanation works well. When various flavors combine, tasting them all gives rise to a single consciousness. If the flavors are distinct, however, tasting each one separately gives rise to its own consciousness.

觸入有十一種：四大、澁、滑、輕、重、冷、飢、渴。

> There are eleven kinds of touch sensations: the four great elements, roughness, smoothness, lightness, heaviness, cold, hunger, and thirst.

問曰：為緣一觸能生身識、為緣多觸能生身識？

> Question: Is the body-consciousness produced by a single contact, or is it produced by multiple contacts?

答曰：十一種觸能生十一種身識。復有說者，五觸能生一身識。如四大及滑生一身識，如是四大乃至及渴生一身識。

> Reply: Eleven kinds of contact give rise to eleven kinds of body-consciousness. Some say that five kinds of contact can give rise to one body-consciousness. For example, the four great elements together with smoothness give rise to one body-consciousness; similarly, the four great elements together with various sensations like thirst give rise to one body-consciousness.

問曰：若然者，云何不名總緣境界？

> Question: If that is the case, then why is it not called the overall sphere of experience?

答曰：同一觸入故，不名總緣境界。評曰：不應作是說，如前說者好。

> Answer: Because it pertains to the same sense-contact, it is not called a total-arising realm of objects. Critique: This explanation should not be given in that way; the earlier explanation is better.

問曰：為嗅甞覺身中香味觸不？若嗅甞覺身中香味觸者，云何檀越所施而有果報？復云何不於一切時嗅嘗覺耶？若嗅嘗覺外香味觸，外香味觸與內香味觸無有因義。

> Question: Do we perceive smells, tastes, and sensations within the body? If we perceive smells, tastes, and sensations within the body, then how can offerings made by donors produce karmic results? And why would we not be constantly perceiving these sensations? If we perceive smells, tastes, and sensations from the external world, then the external smells, tastes, and sensations have no causal connection with the internal ones.

答曰：應作是說：能緣內香味觸。

> Answer: It should be said: \[The mind\] can take the internal objects of scent, flavor, and touch as its conditions.

問曰：若然者，云何檀越所施而有果報？云何不一切時嗅嘗覺耶？

> Question: If that is the case, then how do donors receive karmic rewards for their offerings? And why is it that we don't perceive the fragrance at all times?

答曰：外香味觸能發內香味觸，以是事故名之為食。復有說者，亦嗅嘗覺觸內入外入，若時覺內則不知外，覺外則不知內。

> Reply: External scents, flavors, and sensations give rise to internal scents, flavors, and sensations. For this reason, they are called "nourishment." Some explain further: one also perceives, tastes, feels, and touches internal and external sense fields. When one is aware of the internal, they are not aware of the external; when aware of the external, they are not aware of the internal.

問曰：內香味觸體無增減，云何嗅嘗覺觸？

> Question: Since the essences of scents, flavors, and tactile sensations neither increase nor decrease within the body, how is it that we can smell, taste, and feel them?

答曰：彼法雖無增減，亦為識所緣所知。

> \*\*Answer:\*\* That principle is beyond increase or decrease, yet it is still known and perceived by consciousness.

法入有七種：無作假色、受、想、行、虛空、數緣滅、非數緣滅。

> There are seven types of mental phenomena: unconditioned form (invisible matter created by precepts), feeling, perception, volition (mental formations), space, cessation through understanding, and cessation without understanding.

問曰：為緣一法生意入、為緣多法生意入？

> Question: Does the arising of the mind and its entry into perception depend on a single dharma, or does it depend on multiple dharmas?

答曰：一法亦生，二三乃至多法亦生。唯除自體相應共有，餘一切法能生意識。曾聞菩薩六識猛利，為知幾所法名為猛利？答曰：菩薩宮邊有阿泥盧頭舍，舍中次第行列然五百燈。菩薩爾時於自宮中，不見彼燈及與燈焰，但見其光，知然五百燈。若一燈滅時，菩薩作是言：彼五百燈中一燈已滅。以是事故，言眼識猛利。阿泥盧頭舍中有五百伎女作樂歌舞。菩薩聞聲，知有五百伎女中或琴弦絕、或時睡眠不彈琴時，菩薩亦知，是名耳識猛利。菩薩宮中常燒百種和香，菩薩嗅之便知是百種香。彼合香者欲試菩薩，於百種中或增或減。若燒香時，菩薩亦知本有百種，今增爾所種、減爾所種，是名鼻識猛利。菩薩食時常有百味歡喜丸。彼諸使人於百味中或增或減，菩薩即知。以是事故，名舌識猛利。菩薩洗浴時，侍者奉劫波育㲲。菩薩觸時，即便知彼織㲲師身有熱病。以是事故，名身識猛利。菩薩意根，於一切法而無罣礙。以是事故，名意識猛利。

> \*\*Question:\*\* Is it said that a single dharma can arise, and two, three, or more dharmas can also arise? Apart from self-nature, mutual correspondence, and coexistence, all other dharmas can give rise to consciousness. It has been heard that a bodhisattva's six consciousnesses are keen and sharp; to know how many dharmas is this "keenness" referring to? \*\*Answer:\*\* Near the bodhisattva's palace there was Aniruddha's dwelling, where five hundred lamps were lit in sequence. At that time, inside his own palace, the bodhisattva did not see the lamps or their flames, but only saw their light and knew that five hundred lamps were burning. When one lamp went out, the bodhisattva said, "One of the five hundred lamps has gone out." This illustrates the keenness of the eye consciousness. In Aniruddha's dwelling, five hundred female musicians were playing music and dancing. The bodhisattva heard the sounds and knew that among the five hundred female musicians, one had a broken zither string, or one had fallen asleep and stopped playing. This is called the keenness of the ear consciousness. In the bodhisattva's palace, a mixture of a hundred kinds of incense was always burned. The bodhisattva smelled it and could tell which hundred kinds they were. The incense-maker, wanting to test the bodhisattva, either increased or decreased some ingredients among the hundred. When the incense was burned, the bodhisattva knew it originally had a hundred kinds, and now so many kinds had been added or subtracted. This is called the keenness of the nose consciousness. At mealtime, the bodhisattva was always served a hundred kinds of "Joy Pills." The servants either increased or decreased among the hundred flavors, and the bodhisattva immediately knew. This illustrates the keenness of the tongue consciousness. When the bodhisattva bathed, an attendant offered a cotton cloth. When the bodhisattva touched it, he knew that the weaver who made the cloth had a fever. This illustrates the keenness of the body consciousness. The bodhisattva's mind faculty is unobstructed toward all dharmas. This illustrates the keenness of the mind consciousness.

問曰：此六根幾到境界能知？

> Question: How many of these six faculties can perceive their respective realms?

答曰：到有二種：一者取境界；二者於境界無間。若以取境界言之，六根盡到。若以無間言之，則三到、三不到。三到者，謂鼻、舌、身根。三不到者，謂眼、耳、意根。

> Answer: There are two kinds of "arriving" or "reaching": First, reaching by grasping at an object; second, reaching without interruption regarding an object. If we speak in terms of reaching by grasping at an object, all six sense faculties "reach." If we speak in terms of reaching without interruption, then three faculties reach and three do not. The three that reach are the nose, tongue, and body faculties. The three that do not reach are the eye, ear, and mind faculties.

問曰：若三是不到而能知者，何故聞近聲而不見近色？尊者和須蜜答曰：彼界法自爾。復有說者，眼能取遠境界，以極近故不見。

> Question: If the three conditions are not met yet one can still perceive, then why is it that one can hear a nearby sound but cannot see a nearby object? The Venerable Sumedha replied: This is the inherent nature of the laws of those realms. Others explain it this way: The eye can perceive distant objects, but because something is extremely close, it cannot be seen.

問曰：耳亦是遠境界，何以聞近聲？

> Question: The ears are also for distant objects, so how can they hear nearby sounds?

答曰：如以銅籌著安闍那藥置黑瞳上，以近故不見。若聲到耳根微塵上，亦復不聞。尊者佛陀提婆說曰：眼因明故能見，近則冥奪於明，是以不見。如是耳因空故聞聲，鼻因風故嗅香，舌因水故知味，身因地堅故覺觸，意因所觀故能知法。

> One might answer: Just as a copper rod coated with collyrium medicine placed on the black pupil of the eye becomes invisible because it is too close. Likewise, even if a sound reaches the fine particles of the ear root, it is not heard. The venerable Buddha Deva said: The eye sees by relying on light; if something is too close, darkness overpowers the light, hence it is not seen. Similarly, the ear hears sounds by relying on space, the nose smells scents by relying on wind, the tongue tastes flavors by relying on water, the body feels touch by relying on the solidity of earth, and the mind perceives phenomena by relying on what it observes.

問曰：頗有一微塵作所依、一微塵為境界能生識不？

> Question: Can a single atom serve as a basis or a field for the arising of consciousness?

答曰：無也。所以者何？此五識身，依有對緣有對、依積聚緣積聚、依和合緣和合。復有說者，如眼識依自分、緣自分彼分，耳識亦如是；意識依自分彼分、緣自分彼分；鼻舌身識依自分緣自分。復有說者，眼識依自界、緣自界他界，耳識亦如是；意識依自界他界、緣自界他界；餘三識依自界、緣自界界者三界。復有說者，眼識依無記、緣三種，耳識亦如是；意識依三種、緣三種；餘三識依無記、緣無記。復有說者，眼識依近、緣近遠，耳識亦如是；意識依近遠、緣近遠；餘三識依近、緣近。所以者何？若三塵與三依合時三識則生，不合時則不生。復有說者，眼識或所依大、所緣小，或所依小、所緣大，或所依所緣等。所依大所緣小者，如見毛端。所依小所緣大者，如見大山。所依所緣等者，如見蒲桃珠。耳識亦如是。意識所依雖無大小，而所緣有大小。餘三識所依所緣等，隨香與所依等生鼻識，乃至舌身識亦如是。或有色雖遠而是境界，或有色雖不遠而非境界，有色亦遠亦非境界，有色亦不遠亦非不境界。云何有色雖遠而是境界？如四天王所居宮遠，人眼所不見，此非不是境界，以遠故人眼不見。不遠亦非境界者，如梵天在此，人眼不見。亦遠亦非境界者，如梵天自住宮。亦不遠亦非不境界者，除上爾所事。尊者和須蜜說曰：色有四事故不見：極近、極遠、極細、障色。迦毘羅弟子作是說：色有八事故不見：極遠、極近、根壞、意不住、微細、障、為勝所瞖、同故不見。

> Answer: No. Why? These five types of consciousness depend on objects that have resistance, on accumulations, and on combinations. Some say: For eye-consciousness, it relies on its own category for the sense organ and on both its own and other categories for the object; ear-consciousness is the same. Mind-consciousness relies on both its own and other categories for the sense organ and on both its own and other categories for the object. Nose, tongue, and body consciousness rely on their own category for both sense organ and object. Others say: Eye-consciousness relies on its own realm<note>Realms refer to the three realms (desire, form, formless).</note> for the sense organ and on both its own and other realms for the object; ear-consciousness is the same. Mind-consciousness relies on both its own and other realms for the sense organ and on both its own and other realms for the object. The remaining three consciousnesses rely on their own realm for the sense organ and on their own realm for the object. Others say: Eye-consciousness relies on a neutral sense organ and perceives three types of objects (good, bad, neutral); ear-consciousness is the same. Mind-consciousness relies on three types of sense organs and perceives three types of objects. The remaining three consciousnesses rely on a neutral sense organ and perceive neutral objects. Others say: Eye-consciousness relies on near objects and perceives both near and far objects; ear-consciousness is the same. Mind-consciousness relies on both near and far objects and perceives both near and far objects. The remaining three consciousnesses rely on near objects and perceive near objects. Why? When the three sensory objects (taste, smell, touch) come into contact with their corresponding sense organs, the three consciousnesses arise; otherwise, they do not. Others say: The supporting organ of eye-consciousness may be large while the object is small, or the organ small while the object is large, or the organ and object equal. Large organ and small object: seeing a hair tip. Small organ and large object: seeing a great mountain. Equal organ and object: seeing a grape. Ear-consciousness is similar. Although the supporting organ of mind-consciousness has no size, its objects have size. For the remaining three consciousnesses, the organ and object are equal: just as smell arises in proportion to the contact of the scent with its organ, similarly for taste and touch. Some visible objects are far yet are still objects; some are not far yet are not objects; some are both far and not objects; some are neither far nor not objects. What is far yet an object? For example, the palaces of the Four Heavenly Kings are far, and human eyes cannot see them, but they are still objects; due to distance, human eyes cannot see them. What is not far yet not an object? For example, a Brahma god residing here is not seen by human eyes. What is both far and not an object? For example, the Brahma god in his own palace. What is neither far nor not an object? Everything other than the above. Venerable Vasumitra said: Visible things are not seen for four reasons: too close, too far, too subtle, or obscured. The disciples of Kapila say: Visible things are not seen for eight reasons: too far, too close, damaged sense organ, mentally preoccupied, subtlety, obstruction, overshadowed by a superior, or similarity so no distinction.

問曰：眼根為有筋骨皮肉不耶？

> Question: Does the eye faculty consist of sinews, bones, skin, and flesh?

答曰：無也，是淨四大。言有骨等者，是眼根處所。筋骨皮肉是四入，謂色、香、味、觸。

> The answer is: No, it is not so. The pure elements—earth, water, fire, and air—constitute the pure physical form. When we speak of bones and such, these refer to the locations of the eye faculty. Tendons, bones, skin, and flesh are the four sensory objects, namely: form, smell, taste, and touch.

諸過去者盡不現耶？乃至廣說。

> Of all that is past, is it truly gone and no longer present? This teaching has been explained thus, in full detail.

問曰：何以作此論？

> Question: Why compose this treatise?

答曰：《優陀耶經》是此論本緣，世尊共優陀耶東方遊行。爾時世尊著一重衣而自洗浴。

> Answer: The Udāyī Sūtra is the original source text of this treatise. The World-Honored One was traveling eastward with Udāyī. At that time, the World-HonoredOne, wearing only a single robe, was bathing himself.

時優陀耶給事世尊摩拭身體。優陀耶是菩薩少小親友，常為菩薩按摩調身。今見世尊光明照耀勝菩薩時，生於尊敬歡喜之心，白佛言：世尊！我今欲以龍喻之偈讚歎世尊。世尊告言：隨意說之。時優陀耶便說此偈：

> At that time, Utaya was attending the World-Honored One and massaging his body. Utaya had been a close friend of the Bodhisattva since childhood, often helping with massage and body care. Now, seeing the World-Honored One's radiance shining even brighter than when he was a Bodhisattva, Utaya felt a deep sense of respect and joy. He said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I wish to praise you with a verse using the simile of a dragon." The World-Honored One replied: "Speak as you wish." Then Utaya recited this verse:

「一切結過去， 於林離林來，出欲生喜樂， 猶如山頂金。」

> All bonds have been left behind, Free from the forest and the forest's pull. One who renounces desire finds inner joy, Like pure gold upon a mountain peak.

一切結過去者，過去有二種：一、世過去；二、巧便過去。世尊於諸結得解脫，是名結過去。於林離林來者，林名居家。離林來者，所謂出家。於林來出家，故名於林離林來。出欲生喜樂者，欲有二種：一、煩惱欲；二、境界欲。出者，出家欲煩亂。生喜樂者，身心寂靜。是名出欲生喜樂。猶如山頂金者，山者日出處山也。金者，日也。如日在山頂出時其光明淨；世尊於諸煩惱使垢山頂出時，其光明淨亦復如是。復有說者，山者黑沙山也，金者金沙山也。若除黑沙山，則金沙山其光明淨。世尊亦爾，除去一切煩惱使垢黑沙之山，則力、無畏、念處、大悲金沙之山其光明淨，是故說猶如山頂金。是名過去非不現。所以者何？如來身猶現在故。或有不現非過去者，猶如有一，若以神足、若以呪術，乃至廣說。若以神足者，爾時世尊入如是三昧，於梵世中放大光明普令周遍，出大音聲令梵天王及諸梵眾普使聞知，而無見者。如尊者目連入如是三昧，能令提婆達多不見其身。

> All bonds that have been "passed away" are of two kinds: first, passing away in time; second, passing away through skillful means. The World-Honored One attained liberation from all bonds—this is called "the passing away of bonds." "He who comes from the forest, having left the forest": "The forest" means the household life. "Coming from the forest" means leaving home to become a renunciant. Having left home for the forest life, he is thus called "one who comes from the forest, having left the forest." "He who gives rise to joy and happiness by transcending desire": There are two kinds of desire: first, the desire of afflictions; second, the desire for sense objects. "Transcending" refers to renouncing the turmoil of desire. "Giving rise to joy and happiness" means the peace and stillness of body and mind. This is called "giving rise to joy and happiness by transcending desire." "Like gold atop a mountain": "The mountain" refers to the mountain from which the sun rises. "Gold" refers to the sun itself. Just as the sun, when it rises atop a mountain, shines with pure, radiant light, so too did the World-Honored One, when He rose above the mountain of afflictions, fetters, and defilements, shine with pure, radiant light. Some say: "The mountain is the mountain of black sand; gold is the mountain of golden sand. If the mountain of black sand is removed, then the mountain of golden sand shines with pure light. Likewise, the World-Honored One, having removed the mountain of black sand—that is, all afflictions, fetters, and defilements—made the mountain of golden sand—that is, His powers, fearlessness, foundations of mindfulness, and great compassion—shine with pure, radiant light." Therefore, it is said, "like gold atop a mountain." This is called "passing away, yet not disappearing completely." Why? Because the Thus-Come One's physical body still exists. There is also the case of something "not yet passed away, yet not appearing." For instance, someone, whether through supernatural powers or through mantras, and so forth—through supernatural powers, the World-Honored One at that time entered a samadhi that caused a great light to shine everywhere throughout the Brahma world, and a great sound to be heard by Brahma King and all Brahma assemblies, yet no one could see Him. Likewise, the venerable Maudgalyayana could enter a samadhi that prevented Devadatta from seeing his body.

問曰：此神足於誰不現？

> Question: For whom do these miraculous powers remain hidden?

答曰：佛，於一切眾生邊不現。辟支佛，除佛，餘一切眾生邊不現。舍利弗，除佛、辟支佛，餘一切眾生邊不現。目犍連，除佛、辟支佛、舍利弗，餘一切眾生邊不現。乃至利根，於鈍根邊能令不現。呪術者，諸仙人結如是呪，有能誦者令身不現。彼神足者，於呪術邊令身不現；呪術不能於神足邊令身不現。

> The Buddha is invisible to all beings. The Pratyekabuddha is invisible to all beings except the Buddha. Shariputra is invisible to all beings except the Buddha and the Pratyekabuddha. Maudgalyayana is invisible to all beings except the Buddha, the Pratyekabuddha, and Shariputra. Similarly, those with sharper faculties are invisible to those with duller faculties. As for magical spells, the ancient sages devised such mantras that whoever recites them can make their body invisible. The power of spiritual attainments can render the body invisible even to spells; but spells cannot render the body invisible to those with spiritual attainments.

問曰：呪術還於呪術能令身不現耶？

> Question: Can mantras make the body invisible when used against other mantras?

答曰：能，如善呪術者，於不善呪術邊能令身不現。藥草者，有如是藥草，人若執之令身不現。如毘舍遮、鳩槃荼等呪術者，能於持藥草者邊令身不現；持藥草者，於呪術者邊不能令身不現。何以故？呪術力能取藥草故。生得處者，如地獄生得處，不能令身不現；若當能令身不現者，乃至須臾不住地獄中受苦。復有說者，雖於地獄卒邊不能令身不現，能於餘處令身不現。畜生、餓鬼、天亦能令身不現。

> Answer: Yes. For example, a skilled magician can make his body invisible to a practitioner of harmful magic. There are also certain medicinal herbs that, when held, can make a person invisible. A sorcerer who commands spirits such as \*Piśācas\* or \*Kumbhāṇḍas\* can make his body invisible to someone holding such herbs, but the herb-holder cannot become invisible to the sorcerer. Why? Because the sorcerer’s power can overcome the herbs. As for beings born in certain realms: those born in hell cannot make themselves invisible. If they could, they would not remain in hell for even a moment to suffer. Some say, however, that while hell-beings cannot make themselves invisible to the hell-guards, they can become invisible elsewhere. Beings in the animal realm, ghost realm, and heavenly realms are also capable of making themselves invisible.

問曰：如是各各能於誰令身不現？

> Question: In this way, each and every one of them—by whose power can they make themselves invisible?

答曰：或有說者，地獄還於地獄令身不現，畜生於畜生地獄能令身不現，餓鬼能於餓鬼畜生地獄令身不現，天於五道能令身不現。評曰：應作是說：地獄能於五道令身不現，乃至天能於五道令身不現，所謂障隔也。是謂不現非過去。云何過去亦不現耶？諸法生始生，乃至過去過去世攝。如此盡明生法，是謂過去亦不現。云何非過去非不現？答曰：除上爾所事。諸法第一第二第三句，已稱已說已行已立名字者，除諸餘法未稱未說未行未作名字者，作第四句。彼已說者是何等耶？答曰：所謂一切過去現在世中取如來身及障隔不現者，其餘現在法、一切未來世法、無為法在在者作第四句，是謂非過去非不現。

> Reply: Some say: Beings in hell can make themselves invisible to other beings in hell. Beings in the animal realm can make themselves invisible to beings in hell and to other animals. Hungry ghosts can make themselves invisible to hungry ghosts, animals, and beings in hell. Gods can make themselves invisible to beings in all five realms. Critique: It should be said: Beings in hell can make themselves invisible to beings in all five realms, and so on up to gods being able to make themselves invisible in all five realms—this refers to obstructing or concealing. This is what is meant by "invisible" but not "past." What is meant by both "past" and "invisible"? When a phenomenon first arises, it is born; when it is past, it belongs to the past realm. All such phenomena that are born are the "past" and also "invisible." What is meant by "neither past nor invisible"? Reply: Except for the above cases. For the first, second, and third categories of phenomena—already named, described, enacted, and established with terms—remove all other phenomena that have not yet been named, described, enacted, or given terms. These constitute the fourth category. What are the phenomena already described? Reply: They include all present and past phenomena that involve the Tathāgata's body and its obstructed invisibility. All other present phenomena, all future phenomena, and unconditioned phenomena that exist elsewhere constitute the fourth category. This is what is meant by "neither past nor invisible."

問曰：以何等故此中不說結不現耶？

> Question: Why does it not say here that the bonds do not appear?

答曰：處處有說結是盡是滅，無有處說結不現。如此四句，亦依世俗法、亦依佛經、亦依世諦、亦依第一義諦。

> Answer: It is often taught that "bonds are to be brought to an end, bonds are to be extinguished," but nowhere is it taught that bonds should be made nonexistent. These four points are established based on worldly conventions, based on the Buddha's teachings, based on conventional truth, and based on ultimate truth.

諸過去者彼盡耶？乃至廣說。過去不盡者，如長老優陀耶所說，廣說如上。盡不過去者，如世尊言：此比丘！盡地獄趣，乃至廣說。

> Those who have passed—have they ended? And so forth, extensively explained. Those who have passed do not end, as the elder Venerable Udāyin stated, expanded upon as above. Those who end do not pass, as the World-Honored One declared: "This monk ends the realm of hell," and so forth, extensively explained.

問曰：地獄、畜生、餓鬼，即說地獄、畜生、餓鬼盡。何以復言不墮惡道惡趣耶？

> Question: Regarding the hells, animals, and hungry ghosts—it is said that those realms are entirely ended. Why then is it also said that one does not fall into evil paths or unfortunate destinies?

答曰：更無未曾有事。言不墮惡道者，即是盡地獄、畜生、餓鬼，但前廣說、後是略說，文雖有異義無異也。復有說者，前是廣說、後是略說，前說是解、後說不解。復有說者，盡是地獄、畜生、餓鬼。如前說不墮惡道惡趣者，是黃門、般吒、無形、二形。所以者何？此亦是人中惡道惡趣故。復有說者，盡地獄等。如前說不墮惡道惡趣者，是不斷善根。所以者何？若斷善根，即是惡道惡趣故。如說：身壞命終，如擲真珠須墮惡道中。復有說者，盡地獄等。如前說不墮惡道惡趣者，說十二非律儀家。所以者何？此亦是惡趣故。復有說者，盡地獄等。如前說不墮惡道惡趣者，說惡道惡趣因，以因說果故。如世尊言：汝等比丘！若見有人作身口意惡業，當知是地獄趣。復有說者，盡地獄等。如前說不墮者，說地獄趣。所以者何？不能成就善果故。惡道者是餓鬼趣。所以者何？於一切時常乏少所須故。惡趣者是畜生趣。所以者何？有眾生生彼趣中，世界成時受身，乃至世界壞時命終。復有說者，不墮者盡說三惡道。如畜生、餓鬼中雖有成就善果者少。惡道者，盡說三惡道，以人天言之盡是惡道。惡趣者，亦盡說三惡道，以身心生其中故。盡地獄趣，乃至廣說。

> Answer: There is nothing new here. When it says "will not fall into evil paths," this means the complete eradication of the hells, animal realm, and hungry ghost realm. The earlier passage provides a detailed explanation, while the later one gives a summary. Although the wording differs, the meaning is the same. Some explain it this way: The earlier passage is a detailed explanation, the later one is a summary. The former provides understanding, the latter does not. Others say: "Falling" refers specifically to the hells, animal realm, and hungry ghost realm. As stated earlier, "not falling into evil paths and miserable realms" refers to eunuchs, the genderless, and those with both sexes. Why? Because these are also considered evil paths and miserable realms within the human realm. Still others say: "Falling" includes all of the hells and so on. As previously stated, "not falling into evil paths and miserable realms" means not cutting off one's wholesome roots. Why? Because cutting off wholesome roots is itself an evil path and a miserable realm. As it is said: "When the body breaks and life ends, it is like tossing a precious pearl—it must fall into an evil path." Yet others say: "Falling" includes all of the hells and so on. As previously stated, "not falling into evil paths and miserable realms" refers to the twelve types of non-virtuous families. Why? Because these are also miserable realms. Furthermore, some say: "Falling" includes all of the hells and so on. As previously stated, "not falling into evil paths and miserable realms" refers to the causes of evil paths and miserable realms, explaining the effect through the cause. As the World-Honored One said: "Monks, if you see someone committing evil deeds through body, speech, or mind, know that they are destined for the hell realm." Additionally, some say: "Falling" includes all of the hells and so on. As previously stated, "not falling" refers specifically to the hell realm. Why? Because one cannot achieve good results there. "Evil paths" refers to the hungry ghost realm. Why? Because they constantly lack what they need. "Miserable realms" refers to the animal realm. Why? Because beings born there receive their bodies when the world forms and only die when the world ends. Finally, some say: "Not falling" encompasses all three lower realms. Although in the animal and hungry ghost realms there are few who achieve good results. "Evil paths" also encompasses all three lower realms, from the perspective of humans and heavenly beings, all are considered evil paths. "Miserable realms" likewise covers all three lower realms, because body and mind are born within them. This includes the entire hell realm, and so on.

問曰：如今地獄鑊湯獄卒等猶在，何以言盡？

> Question: "If the cauldrons of boiling oil in hell and the prison guards are still present today, how can you say they have ceased to exist?"

答曰：或有說者，不往不生故言盡。不往者不復往彼處，不生者不復生地獄陰界入。復有說者，彼聖人不生故言盡，彼諸陰界入住不生法故。復有說者，得非數緣滅故言盡。

> One explanation says that "extinction" means no longer going anywhere and no longer being reborn. "No longer going anywhere" means they will not go to any other realm of existence. "No longer being reborn" means they will not be reborn into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements of the hell realm. Another explanation says that for those noble ones, they will not be reborn, which is why it is called "extinction." The aggregates, sense bases, and elements they previously possessed will no longer arise, as they have entered a state where birth no longer occurs. Another explanation says that this is attained through the cessation that is not dependent on conditions (non-intentional nirvana), which is why it is called "extinction."

問曰：彼亦盡天趣亦盡人趣。盡天趣者，不生無想天。盡人趣者，不生欝單越。何以但言盡地獄等趣？

> Question: That \[state\] also ends the heavenly realms and the human realms. Ending the heavenly realms means one is not reborn in the Heaven of No Thought. Ending the human realms means one is not reborn in Uttarakuru. Why does it only speak of ending the hells and other realms?

答曰：以都盡故說盡，不都盡故說不盡。過去亦盡者，諸行始生，廣說如上。亦不過去不盡者，除上爾所事，如前廣說。已說者，一切過去現世有如來身，未來世中聖人墮惡趣陰界入住。不生者，餘未來現在法、無為法在在者，作第四句。此說世盡四句，今當說結盡四句。

> Answer: Because suffering has entirely ended, it is called "ended." Because it has not entirely ended, it is called "unending." What has passed is also ended: this refers to when various formations first arise, explained in detail as above. What has passed is also not ended: excluding the aforementioned matters, as previously explained in detail. "Already ended" means all past and present exist as the Tathāgata's body, while in the future, sages may fall into the evil realms among the aggregates, elements, and sense bases. "Not arising" refers to the remaining present and future phenomena and unconditioned phenomena—wherever they are, this constitutes the fourth category. This explains the four categories of the ending of the world. Now we shall explain the four categories of the ending of afflictions.

復次今當說結。結有過去不盡，乃至廣說。結過去不盡者，諸過去結不斷、不知、不滅、不吐。不斷者、不以聖道斷諸結得。不知者、不證解脫得。復有說者、不斷者是斷知、不知者是智知、不滅者不得數緣滅、不吐者不斷諸結得、不證無為得。復有說者，不吐者不捨棄。彼不斷等復是何耶？答曰：具縛人見道修道所斷結是也。聖人若住苦法忍時亦爾，苦比智生，餘有四種結。如是次第乃至道比智生，餘有一種見諦具足修道所斷，隨相而說。盡不過去者，諸結已斷、已知、已滅、已吐。斷者，以聖道斷諸結得。已知者，證解脫得。復有說者，已斷者所謂斷知，乃至廣說。斷等復是何耶？答曰：阿羅漢三界結使斷，乃至廣說。斷等復是何耶？答曰：阿羅漢三界結使斷，乃至欲界凡夫結使斷，應隨相說。過去亦盡者，諸過去結已斷，乃至廣說。斷者，以聖道斷，乃至廣說。不過去亦不盡者，諸未來結不斷，乃至廣說。諸過去盡滅耶？乃至廣說。作四句，過去不滅者，如長老優陀耶言，乃至廣說，是謂過去不滅。滅不過去者，當說小事，小舍言舍滅，乃至廣說。此是世所傳，如東方人小舍言舍滅，乃至小眼見色言眼滅，故作是說。頗有滅眼能見色耶？答曰：有，如此者是也，是名滅不過去。過去亦滅者，諸行生始生，廣說如上。不過去亦不滅者，除上爾所事，廣說如上。已說者是何？一切過去法。現在有佛身及小滅，餘現在法、未來世及無為法在在者，作第四句。

> Now, let us speak about fetters. Fetters include those from the past that are not yet ended—and we will elaborate on this extensively. "Fetters from the past not ended" refers to: past fetters that have not been cut off, not known, not extinguished, and not abandoned. - \*\*Not cut off\*\*: not severed by the noble path. - \*\*Not known\*\*: not realized through liberation. Interpreters also explain: "not cut off" means lacking the knowledge of cutting off; "not known" means lacking the wisdom of direct realization; "not extinguished" means not attaining cessation through specific conditions; "not abandoned" means not cutting off the fetters and not realizing the unconditioned state. Another interpretation: "not abandoned" means not renounced or let go. But what exactly are these "not cut off" fetters? Answer: They are the fetters to be cut off by seeing the path and cultivating the path, which are present in an ordinary person bound by all fetters. Even when a noble practitioner abides in the tolerance of the truth of suffering, it is similar. With the subsequent arising of the wisdom of suffering, four other kinds of fetters remain. In this sequence, up to when the wisdom of the path arises, one kind remains for the person fully realized in seeing the truth, and the rest are to be cut off by cultivating the path—this is explained according to circumstance. "Ended without being past" refers to: fetters that have already been cut off, already known, already extinguished, already abandoned. - \*\*Cut off\*\*: severed by the noble path. - \*\*Known\*\*: realized through liberation. Interpreters say: "already cut off" means the knowledge of cutting off, and so on, elaborated extensively. But what exactly are these "cut off" fetters? Answer: For an Arhat, the fetters of the three realms are cut off, and so on, elaborated extensively. And what of those not yet fully realized, like ordinary people in the desire realm? They should also be explained according to circumstance, such as when fetters in the desire realm are cut off. "Both past and ended": refers to past fetters that have already been cut off, and so on, elaborated extensively. "Cut off": by the noble path, and so on, elaborated extensively. "Neither past nor ended": refers to future fetters that have not been cut off, and so on, elaborated extensively. --- Are all past fetters ended? A fourfold classification follows: 1. \*\*Past but not ended\*\*: For example, as the elder Udaya said, and so on, elaborated. This is called "past but not ended." 2. \*\*Ended but not past\*\*: As when we speak of a small matter—a small hut being called "hut ended"—elaborated. This is a common expression. Just as people in the East say "a small hut ended," or even "small eyes seeing forms, and so the eyes ended"—thus they make this statement. But does having ended eyes allow one to see forms? Answer: There is such a case, and this is what is meant. This is called "ended but not past." 3. \*\*Both past and ended\*\*: For example, when a formation first arises—explained as above. 4. \*\*Neither past nor ended\*\*: Aside from the above cases—elaborated. And what has been explained? All past phenomena, the present Buddha's body and small endings, other present phenomena, future states, and unconditioned phenomena that remain—these constitute the fourth category.

復次今當說結，乃至廣說。前四句明世滅，今四句明數緣滅結。或過去不滅，乃至作四句，廣說如上。

> Next, I will now discuss the "bonds" (or "fetters"), and elaborate further. The preceding four lines clarified cessation in the worldly sense; these four lines clarify cessation through deliberate causes. A bond may not cease in the past, and so on, forming four categories—expanding as explained above.

問曰：以何等故但說結不說結法？

> Question: Why is it that the scriptures speak only of "fetters" but not of the ways fetters arise?

答曰：或有說者，作經者意欲爾，乃至廣說。復有說者，若說結，當知亦說結法。所以者何？同一對治斷故。復有說者，若緣結法，皆為結故。復有說者，結一向染污故說，結法染污不染污故不說。復有說者，若與聖道相妨者說，善有漏不隱沒無記法不與聖道相妨。所以者何？善有漏法於道有出有入，於定亦有出有入，不隱沒無記與聖道作所依，煩惱與聖道相妨，所以應斷。若斷煩惱，彼法亦斷，以同對治斷故。譬如燈明，不與炷油器相妨，唯與闇相妨。欲壞闇故，燒炷盡油熱器。如是有漏善法不與無漏道相妨，猶如燈炷油。不隱沒無記法不與無漏道相妨，如器。是以說結不說結法。如王不與自國自軍相妨，與他國他軍相妨。為壞他軍故，亦少自損國、少自壞軍。如有漏善法不與無漏道相妨，猶如自軍。不隱沒無記法，猶如自國。如是若說斷結，當知結法亦斷。復有說者，若斷害煩惱，亦斷害生死，以是故說結不說結法。如結結法，受受法、使使法、垢垢法、纏纏法亦如是。

> Some say: It is simply the intention of the scripture’s author, and so forth. Others say: When “fetters” are mentioned, one should understand that the objects of fetters are also implied. Why? Because they are severed by the same antidote. Others say: Only what is bound by fetters is being discussed; the objects that are bound are not mentioned separately. Others say: Since fetters are always defiled, they are explicitly named; the objects, being sometimes defiled and sometimes not, are not explicitly mentioned. Others say: What obstructs the noble path is mentioned. Wholesome conditioned dharmas and neutral unmanifested dharmas do not obstruct the noble path. Why? Wholesome conditioned dharmas alternate with the path—entering and emerging from concentration—and neutral unmanifested dharmas serve as the support for the noble path. Afflictions, however, do obstruct the noble path, and thus must be cut off. Once afflictions are cut off, those dharmas are also cut off, as they share the same antidote. This is like a lamp: it does not obstruct the wick, oil, or vessel, but only obstructs darkness. To dispel darkness, the wick is burned, the oil is exhausted, and the vessel is heated. So too, wholesome conditioned dharmas do not obstruct the undefiled path—they are like the wick and oil. Neutral unmanifested dharmas do not obstruct the undefiled path—they are like the vessel. Therefore, only “fetters” are spoken of, not “objects of fetters.” This is also like a king: he is not at odds with his own country or army, but with another country or army. To defeat the enemy, he may also cause some harm to his own country and army. So too, wholesome conditioned dharmas do not obstruct the undefiled path—they are like one’s own army. Neutral unmanifested dharmas are like one’s own country. Thus, when the cutting off of fetters is explained, one should know that the objects of fetters are also cut off. Others say: Both affliction and the cycle of birth and death are cut off. For this reason, only “fetters” are stated, not “objects of fetters.” The same principle applies to attachments, objects of attachments, underlying tendencies, objects of underlying tendencies, stains, objects of stains, entanglements, and objects of entanglements.

若苦生疑，乃至廣說。

> If there is doubt about suffering, it should be explained in detail, even at great length.

問曰：何故作此論？答曰：此是佛經。如經說：有事論婆羅門往詣佛所，作如是問：沙門瞿曇！甚為希有。是疑難度，非是易度。佛語婆羅門：如是，如是。甚為希有。是疑難度，非是易度。婆羅門！於意云何？古昔諸婆羅門，作韋陀者、造呪術者，一名阿吒駒、二名傍摩駒、三名傍摩提婆、四名毘婆蜜哆、五名闍婆阿尼、六名阿祈羅、七名婆羅池殊、八名婆私吒、九名迦葉、十名毘浮，如是等皆不斷疑心而便命終。婆羅門！以是因緣故，當知疑心難斷難度。佛經說疑，不廣分別。佛經是此論根本因緣，彼中未說者，今當盡說，故作此論。若苦生疑，乃至廣說。此是甚深微細，難可顯現。若緣此苦，如是之間多心已過。以是事故，尊者迦旃延子說苦法忍生，乃至道比智生，於其中間有六十剎那現，其性速疾：有苦邪？是一意；無苦邪？是二意。彼邪字者，以成疑義。所以者何？若無邪字者，有苦是正見、無苦是邪見。如是以邪字成，於苦疑亦應以邪字，乃至成於道疑。如此八心，是最少者。若緣諦生疑，亦有多心。頗有一意是疑非疑，乃至廣說。

> A question is asked: Why has this treatise been composed? The answer is: This is based on the Buddha's teachings. As recorded in the scriptures, a Brahmin named "Worldly Disputation" once visited the Buddha and posed this question: "Master Gautama, this is extremely rare, a difficulty that is not easy to overcome." The Buddha replied, "So it is, so it is. It is indeed extremely rare, a difficulty that is not easy to overcome. Brahmin, what do you think? In ancient times, the Brahmins who composed the Vedas and created spells—their names include Atakota, Pramagoka, Pramadeva, Bibhamitra, Jabaani, Askira, Baraciyu, Vasistha, Kasyapa, and Vibhu—all of them passed away without cutting off their doubts. Brahmin, for this reason, you should know that the mind of doubt is difficult to cut off and overcome." The scriptures speak of doubt, but they do not elaborate in detail. Since the Buddha's teachings are the foundational cause of this treatise, what has not been explained there will now be fully explained, which is why this treatise is composed. If doubt arises regarding suffering, this is discussed in detail. This matter is extremely profound and subtle, difficult to make evident. If this cause of suffering is encountered, many mental moments pass in between. For this reason, the venerable Katyayaniputra says that from the arising of the knowledge of endurance regarding suffering to the arising of the knowledge of the path, there are sixty moments that manifest, and their nature is swift: "Is suffering real?" is one mental moment; "Is suffering not real?" is a second mental moment. The word "doubt" thus completes the meaning of uncertainty. Why? If the word "doubt" were absent, "suffering is real" would be correct view, and "suffering is not real" would be wrong view. Thus, with the word "doubt," doubt regarding suffering is established, and in the same way, doubt regarding the path is established. There are at least these eight types of mental moments. If doubts arise regarding the Four Noble Truths, there can also be many mental moments. Can there be a single mental moment that is both doubt and not doubt? This is discussed in detail.

問曰：何以作此論？為以自體、為以境界？若以自體者，疑心相應法猶豫是疑，慧是非疑。若以境界者，一切凡夫於如來身疑，一切聖於如來身不疑。若作是說：頗有一意是疑非疑？何以答言無？

> Question: Why is this treatise written? Is it for the sake of self-nature, or for the sake of external objects? If it is for the sake of self-nature: A mental factor associated with doubt is wavering; that is doubt. Wisdom is not doubt. If it is for the sake of external objects: All ordinary beings have doubt concerning the Tathāgata's body. All holy beings have no doubt concerning the Tathāgata's body. If one says: Is there any single mind that is both doubting and not doubting? Why is the answer: There is no such thing?

答曰：所問者，頗有一意是疑非疑？是疑者，一意猶豫，亦是決定邪？非疑者，一意決定，亦是猶豫邪？是故答曰無邪。是苦邪？此心是疑；是苦，此心非疑，是正見。無苦邪？此心是疑；無苦，此心非疑，是邪見。如是有四正見、有四邪見，有八疑。

> Answer: Is the question you ask a single thought that is doubt or not doubt? If it is doubt, is that single thought wavering yet also certain? If it is not doubt, is that single thought certain yet also wavering? Therefore the answer is no. Is it suffering? This mind is doubt; is it suffering? This mind is not doubt—that is Right View. Is it no suffering? This mind is doubt; is it no suffering? This mind is not doubt—that is Wrong View. Thus there are four types of Right View, four types of Wrong View, and eight types of doubt.

問曰：此八疑心，幾能生正決定、幾能生邪決定？

> Question: Among these eight kinds of doubtful minds, how many can lead to correct resolve and how many can lead to wrong resolve?

答曰：四能生正決定，四能生邪決定。

> The answer: Four lead to correct certainty, and four lead to wrong certainty.

問曰：何等人疑，能生正決定？何等人疑，能生邪決定？

> Question: Which kind of doubt can give rise to correct certainty? Which kind of doubt can give rise to wrong certainty?

答曰：有人憙親近善知識、樂聽聞法，有人不憙親近善知識、不樂聞法。若人憙親近善知識、樂聽聞法者，如此人疑，能生正決定。有人不憙親近善知識、不樂聞法者，如此人疑，能生邪決定。復有說者，有人多與內道人共住，有人多與外道人共住。若多與內道人共住者，如此人疑，能生正決定。若多與外道人共住者，如此人疑，能生邪決定。復有說者，有人多好習內道經，有人多好習外書。若好習內道經者，如是人疑，能生正決定。若好習外書者，如此人疑，能生邪決定。

> The answer: Some people enjoy drawing near to virtuous spiritual friends and delight in hearing the Dharma; others do not. For those who do, their doubts can lead to correct and certain understanding. For those who do not, their doubts can lead to wrong and fixed views. Furthermore, there are those who spend more time with inner-path practitioners, and those who spend more time with outer-path practitioners. For the former, their doubts can lead to correct and certain understanding; for the latter, their doubts can lead to wrong and fixed views. Still others prefer studying the scriptures of the inner path, while others prefer studying the texts of the outer path. For those who prefer the inner path, their doubts can lead to correct and certain understanding; for those who prefer the outer path, their doubts can lead to wrong and fixed views.

有三種冥身，所謂於過去世疑猶豫，現在、未來亦如是。

> There are three types of obscured states of mind: doubt and hesitation regarding the past, similarly regarding the present, and likewise regarding the future.

問曰：如疑性，非是無明，何以說是冥身？

> Question: If the nature of doubt is not ignorance, why is it called "The Dark Body"?

答曰：與無明相似故。無有法非無明而與無明相似如疑者，是故說疑是冥身。復有說者，冥是無明，彼疑是其處所、是其舍宅。復有說者，疑是住處故。所以者何？若身中有疑，必有無明。如世人言，以親他故言：汝即是我身。復有說者，同是一法。所以者何？俱是不決定故。

> Answer: Because it is similar to ignorance. There is no phenomenon that is not ignorance, yet resembles ignorance in the way doubt does. Therefore, doubt is said to be the body of darkness. Others explain: Darkness is ignorance, and doubt is its space, its dwelling place. Still others say: Doubt is a residence. Why? If there is doubt in a person, there must be ignorance. As people say, by being close to another, one says, "You are my body." Others claim they are the same phenomenon. Why? Because both are characterized by uncertainty.

問曰：以何等故世尊說緣世生疑是冥身，不說緣無為是冥身耶？答曰：或有說者，世是麁法，現可了知。若於世脫失，諸聖說是冥身；無為法微細，不可現得了知，是故諸聖不說是冥身。如人晝行脫失，為世人所呵笑；如人夜行脫失，則不為世所呵笑。彼亦如是。復有說者，為諸外道故，緣世生疑，說是冥身。諸外道偏愚於世，我曾在過去世不，乃至廣說；是故說疑世是冥身。復有說者，疑心多緣世生、少緣無為生。復有說者，世乃至小兒猶於中愚，所謂去來今事。以如是等現事故，世尊說疑世心是冥身。涅槃是非根法，甚深微細覺性乃能了知，是故疑此法者不說冥身。如經說：佛告比丘：以五事故令心弊惡。云何為五？所謂有人於如來所而生疑心，不解、不觀、不信，是名於如來所不斷心弊惡；於法、於戒、於教亦如是。佛所讚歎、智人所識、修梵行者，常以麁言譏刺毀訾觸惱，無恭敬心，是名於梵行者不斷心弊惡。問曰：此心弊惡，體性是何？答曰：此心弊惡有二分，所謂疑與瞋恚，四是疑分，一是瞋恚。問曰：瞋恚是弊惡，是事可爾。所以者何？如說：云何瞋恚結？答曰：若心生害、心生弊惡、心生瞋恚，是名瞋恚結。如疑心性非瞋恚，何以說是弊惡？答曰：或有說者，無有法性非瞋恚而與瞋恚相似如疑心者。如所說：疑隱弊心令心堅䩕弊惡，猶如良田不種植時堅䩕弊惡，彼亦如是。復有說者，疑隱弊心時尚不能生邪決定，況正決定。如田弊惡猶不生草，何況苗稼。復有說者，瞋恚令自身弊惡，疑心能令自身弊惡亦復如是。如田弊惡，人所棄捨，所生稗䅎猶不任用，何況粳糧。如是疑結令眾生生心弊惡，猶不能生於邪決定，況正決定。復有說者，同行相對故。同行者，俱行愁慼行。相對者，同與欣踊行相對。

問曰：以何等故於佛生疑說是弊惡，於僧非邪？

> Question: Why do we harbor doubts about the Buddha and speak of such faults and evils, while not showing the same misgivings toward the Sangha?

答曰：佛無過失之行，若於佛生疑，此疑無過而起。僧少有過失之行可見，若於僧生疑，此疑因過而起。以是事故，因佛生疑名為弊惡，因僧生疑不名弊惡。復有說者，一向無過故。佛世尊乃至無有少過，若於佛生疑，此疑無過而起。眾僧少不隨順事可見故，若於僧生疑，因過而起。以是事故，因佛生疑名為弊惡，因僧生疑不名弊惡。如佛生疑，法、戒、教亦如是。

問曰：以何等故於僧生恚名為弊惡，於佛非耶？

答曰：若佛生恚，此心偏重。以偏重故，更立重名，名為橫惡。

## 阿毘曇毘婆沙論卷第八