阿毘達磨藏顯宗論卷第一
Abhidharma Treasury Commentary, Volume 1
尊者眾賢造
Venerable Sanghabhadra Composed
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
Tripitaka Master Xuanzang's Imperial Translation
序品第一
Chapter 1: Prologue
諸有遍於一切法， 最極難知自共相，
獨能悟解無邪亂， 是一切智今敬禮。
我以順理廣博言， 對破餘宗顯本義，
若經主言順理教， 則隨印述不求非。
少違對法旨及經， 決定研尋誓除遣，
已說論名順正理， 樂思擇者所應學。
文句派演隔難尋， 非少劬勞所能解，
為撮廣文令易了， 故造略論名顯宗。
飾存彼頌以為歸， 刪順理中廣決擇，
對彼謬言申正釋， 顯此所宗真妙義。
All beings pervade all phenomena— Their shared and unique natures are profound, most difficult to know. You alone awaken to them, without confusion— To the All-Knowing One, I pay homage.
With orderly and expansive words, I refute other schools and reveal the fundamental meaning. If the Lord of Scriptures speaks in accord with reason and doctrine, I will follow his teachings and seek no fault.
When there is slight deviation from the Abhidharma's meaning and the sutras, I vow to investigate with resolve and remove it. Already the treatise is named "Conforming to True Reason"— It should be studied by those who delight in discerning truth.
The verses and phrases branch out, making it hard to grasp; Only with great effort can one understand. To condense the broad text and make it easy to comprehend, I have composed this concise treatise, "Illuminating the Principle."
I have retained the original verses as the core, And deleted the extensive discussions from "Conforming to True Reason." Against mistaken assertions, I set forth correct explanations, Revealing the true and sublime meaning upheld here.
論曰：既非遍智，云何能知此佛世尊是一切智，能於諸法最極難知自共相中覺無邪亂？雖非遍智而亦能知，如佛教行定得果故，如有智者善鑒良醫。如世有醫，先審病者風熱淡等所起疾源，復如實觀性習二體、年時處等種種不同，為欲蠲除說授方藥。諸有患者能順服行，痼疾漸除身安日益。智者尋驗知實良醫，於諸方藥具淨遍智。如是世尊知所化者貪瞋癡等煩惱病源，復如實觀本性修集二善種子勝解隨眠，及彼堪能自圓滿等，為欲令彼暫永滅故，說授伏除二道方藥。諸所化者能順服行，若別若通對治道藥，無始數習增盛堅牢，諸煩惱病漸漸除遣，貪等滅得，於自身中隨道淺深倍倍增勝。由斯仰測知我大師滅一切冥具一切智，故讚頌者頌讚佛言：
Explanation: Now, although the Buddha is not omniscient in the sense of knowing everything simultaneously, how can we say that he is the All-Knowing One, who perceives without error the most subtle self-characteristics and shared characteristics of all phenomena? He understands because his teachings, when practiced, lead to definite results—just as a wise person can recognize a skilled physician. Consider a doctor who first examines the source of a patient's illness, whether from wind, bile, or phlegm, then carefully observes their nature, habits, age, season, and other conditions, and prescribes medicine accordingly. When patients follow the treatment, their chronic ailments gradually diminish, their body becomes healthy, and their vitality increases. A wise observer then concludes that this doctor is truly skilled and thoroughly knowledgeable in medicine. Similarly, the World-Honored One recognizes the roots of suffering in beings—greed, anger, and ignorance—and observes their nature, practices, virtuous seeds, inclinations, and potential for completeness. To temporarily or permanently eliminate their afflictions, he teaches the path of subduing and the path of elimination. When his followers practice these teachings, whether individually or universally, the long-cultivated, deeply rooted, and powerful afflictions gradually decrease, and the cessation of greed and other defilements grows increasingly profound within their minds, according to their progress on the path. From this, we infer that our Great Teacher has overcome all darkness and attained all-knowing wisdom. Therefore, the hymn praises the Buddha with these verses.
「誰能如尊善分別， 隨眠境界自共相？
無量無邊諸品類， 如應宣說利有情。
誰能漸次順修行， 不得成於勝利樂？
無智不能順聖教， 豈無驗過在如來！」
"Who can, like you, skillfully discern The dormant and manifest characteristics of conditioned states? Countless categories without limit— You proclaim them aptly to benefit sentient beings.
Who can progress gradually in the Way, Yet fail to achieve supreme joy? Without wisdom, one cannot follow the noble teaching— Surely the Tathagata bears no fault in this!"
有於思擇增上慢人，謂佛世尊非一切智，於所請問別異而答，謂作是言：此不應記諸別異答，無知起故。又於前際說不可知，此即自顯是無知故，又不先覺孫陀利緣及縱彼朋造諸惡故，又於戰遮婆羅門女所起謗毀不能遣故，又先聽許提婆達多於佛法中而出家故，又於外道嗢達洛迦先自不知命存亡故，又不預定波吒釐城當有如斯難事起故，又不懸記自佛法中當有部執十八異故，又說諸業有不定故。外道謗詞略述如是。彼諸外道固執在懷，一切智尊雖設種種善權化導，而未能令於正等覺生淨信解。具勝福慧求真理人，方能測量一切智海。今我勇銳發正勤心，如理順宜且少開悟。言於請問別異而答，謂作是言：此不應記諸別異答無知起者，此不應理，其所立因非決定故。且應詳審：為佛世尊於所請問，由無知故言不應記？為觀問者懷聰叡慢，非卒能令如理信解，故雖了達而不為記。如有矯問：諸石女兒為黑為白？終不為記。豈別有方能祛彼疾？如是外道執我為真，矯問如來死後為有為無等事，世尊告言：此不應記。佛意說我實無有故不應記別。此顯若法都非實有，不應於中為差別問。或佛世尊善權方便，為令調伏故不為記。此不為記是調伏因，非由無知作別異答。又不應謂佛無辯才，彼問論道所不攝故。若彼所問論道攝者，佛不為記，可無辯才。非於此中如理難問少分可得，何容乃謂佛無辯才？又聽法者心不慇故、執我見故、根未熟故，世尊無方可令信解，故於所問置而不記，故不應以不記所問謂大仙尊非一切智。言於初際說不可知，此即自顯是無知者，此亦非理，無法不應為智境故。於有法境智若不生，可謂如來非一切智。本無初際，智何所知？無故不知，豈成無智？若爾，何故不但說無？此說不容更立因故。若謂應立不可知因，此亦不然，非決定故。或法雖有，緣闕不知，故不可知非無因性。若立無性為不知因，即畢竟無可為同喻，為容因故說不可知。若謂無因有不成失，此不應理，非不成故。生死初際若定非無，即初際身應無因起，初無因者後亦應無，以先後身無異因故。若許爾者，即諸所行淨不淨業皆應無果；既不許然，即先所立初際無故，非不成因。若謂生死無初際故應如虛空無後際者，亦不應理，外種同故。如外穀麥後因前生，雖無初際，遇火水等諸燒爛緣而永壞滅。如是生死煩惱業因展轉相生，雖無初際，而由數習貪瞋癡等對治力故，生死諸蘊畢竟不生即為後際，空無生故，後際可無。生死有生，豈無後際？現見生法定有終時。生死既生，理必歸滅，故說初際是不可知，無故為因，其義善立。故不應以不知初際，謂佛世尊非一切智。言不先覺孫陀利緣及縱彼朋造諸惡者，此亦非理。雖先覺知，為避多過故不自顯。若佛先言，我無此事，為此事者自是餘人，即彼朋流惡心轉盛，諸中庸者咸共懷疑。如是過愆為佛為彼？又大人法不顯他非，佛是大人豈揚他惡？又顯彼惡，令無量人憎背世尊，障入正法。又佛觀見自身他身有招謗毀短壽定業，又為開慰末世苾芻，佛觀當來正法將沒，多聞持戒眾望苾芻少有不遭謗毀而死，為欲令彼自開慰言：我大仙尊，一切煩惱過失習氣皆永拔根、名稱普聞，至色究竟尚被囂謗，況我何人！因此心安修諸善業。由觀如是得失決定，是故世尊不先自顯。又過七日其事自彰，顯佛尊高、過歸外道，故不應以不自顯因謂佛世尊非一切智。即由此故，應知已釋不自披遣戰遮謗因。所以聽許提婆達多於佛法中而出家者，此有深意。佛觀彼人不出家者，定當得作力轉輪王，害無量人滅壞佛法，蹎墜惡趣難有出期。由度出家殖深善本，非出家者所不能殖，為護多人令無損害，及遮眾惡故許出家。言於外道嗢達洛迦先自不知命存亡者，此亦非理，念即知故。非於餘境餘識生時，即能了知所餘識境。佛心先在說法事中，未觀彼人命存亡事。後欲知彼，纔舉心時即如實知其命已過。若欲知彼而不能知，可謂如來非一切智。心屬餘境此境未緣即謂無知，斯不應理。言不預定波吒釐城當有如斯難事起者，亦不應理，密預定故。先密意說，若免脫餘，餘復為餘之所損害。謂佛先覺若守護餘，餘必為餘之所損害。於三難事各令自守，餘不能損，故密意說。此即預定難事必然，何謂世尊非一切智？言不懸記自佛法中當有部執十八異者，此亦非理，已懸記故。如說當來有苾芻眾，於我言義不善了知，部執競興互相非毀。世尊於此略說內外二種防護，內謂應如黑說大說，契經所顯觀察防護；外謂應如六可愛法，契經所說斂攝防護。又見集法契經中言：於我法中當有異說，所謂有說唯金剛喻定能頓斷煩惱，或說擇滅涅槃二法為體，或說不相應行無別實物，或說表業尚無況無表業，或說一切色法大種為體，或說前後相似為同類因，或說色處唯用顯色為體，或說觸處唯用大種為體，或說唯有觸處是有對礙，或說觸處身處是有對礙，或說唯五外處是有對礙，或說眼識能見，或說和合能見，或說意界法界俱常無常，或說一切色法非剎那滅，或說不相應行有多時住，或說無想滅定皆現有心，或說等無間緣亦通色法，或說一切色法無同類因，或說異熟生色斷已更續，或說傍生餓鬼天趣亦得別解脫戒，或說心無染污亦得續生，或說一切續生皆由愛恚，或說律儀不律儀分受亦全受，或說傍生餓鬼有無間業，或說無間解脫二道俱能斷諸煩惱，或說意識相應善有漏慧非皆是見，或說身邊二見皆是不善亦他界緣，或說一切煩惱皆是不善，或說無樂捨受，或說唯無捨受，或說無色界中亦有諸色，或說無想天歿皆墮惡趣，或說一切有情無非時死，或說諸無漏慧皆智見性，或說無有去來一切現在別別而說，或說色心非互為俱有因，或說羯剌藍位一切色根皆已具得，或說諸得頂法者皆不墮惡趣，或說諸善惡業皆可轉滅，或說諸無為法非實有體，或說諸世間道不斷煩惱，或說唯贍部洲能起願智無諍無礙重三摩地，或說心心所法亦緣無境。諸如是等差別諍論，各述所執數越多千，師弟相承度百千眾，為諸道俗解說稱揚。我佛法中於未來世當有如是諍論不同，為利為名惡說惡受，不證法實顛倒顯示。即於此部，過現當來亦有如是諍論差別。世尊如是分明懸記，而諸弟子不顧聖言，各執所宗互相非毀。過屬弟子，豈在世尊？不可由斯謗一切智言。說諸業有不定者，理亦不然，有此業故定應許有能感異熟不定業性。此若無者，修道斷結則為唐捐，以一切業定得果故。不應由此所說諸因，或復餘因謗一切智。世尊成就不可思議希有功德高廣名稱，非理毀謗獲罪無邊。諸有智人皆應信佛，具一切智故先敬禮。
**Against Those with Overestimated Discernment**
There are people who suffer from arrogance about their own discernment. They claim: "The Buddha, the World-Honored One, is not all-knowing. When asked questions, He gives different answers. For example, He says: 'This question should not be answered,' and He gives different answers out of ignorance. He also says the beginning is unknowable, which itself reveals His ignorance. Moreover, He failed to foresee the incident with Sundarī and permitted His followers to commit evil. He could not refute the slander by the Brahmin woman Cencā. He allowed Devadatta to become a monk in His dispensation. He did not know in advance whether the ascetic Udraka was alive or dead. He did not predict the difficulties that would arise in Pāṭaliputra. He did not foretell the eighteen different schools that would emerge within His own Sangha. And He said that karma can be indeterminate."
Such are the slanders of the outsiders. These outsiders cling stubbornly to their views. Although the All-Knowing Honored One uses various skillful means to guide them, they still cannot generate pure faith and understanding in the Perfectly Awakened One. Only those who possess merit, wisdom, and seek the truth can measure the ocean of an All-Knowing One's knowledge. Now, I will bravely arouse diligent effort and, in accordance with reason and propriety, clarify this matter briefly.
Regarding the claim that He gave different answers to questions, saying "This should not be answered" out of ignorance: This is unreasonable, because the reason they propose is not definitive. Let us examine this carefully: Did the Buddha say "This should not be answered" because He was ignorant? Or was He observing that the questioner was arrogant and clever, and would not immediately understand the truth through reasoning? Therefore, even though He understood, He did not answer. For example, if someone pretentiously asks, "Is the daughter of a barren woman black or white?" The Buddha would never answer. Would there be any other ability needed to remove such a delusion? Similarly, outsiders cling to a true self and falsely ask such things as whether the Tathāgata exists after death. The Buddha says: "This should not be answered." The Buddha's intention is that the self does not truly exist, so it should not be answered. This shows that if a thing is not real, one should not ask about its distinctions.
Alternatively, the Buddha, through skillful means, may not answer in order to tame the questioner. Not answering is itself a cause of taming, not an answer given out of ignorance. Nor should one claim that the Buddha lacks eloquence, because such questions are not included in the subjects of reasoned discourse. If a question was included, and the Buddha did not answer, then one might say He lacks eloquence. But here, no valid question can be found; how can one say the Buddha lacks eloquence? Furthermore, because the listener's mind is not sincere, clings to self-view, and is not ripe, the Buddha has no means to inspire faith and understanding. Therefore, He sets aside the question and does not answer. Thus, one should not claim that the Great Sage is not all-knowing simply because He does not answer some questions.
Regarding the claim that saying the beginning is unknowable reveals ignorance: This is also unreasonable. A non-existent thing should not be an object of knowledge. If a existent thing were not known, then one could say the Tathāgata is not all-knowing. But the beginning ultimately does not exist; what should knowledge know? Not knowing because it does not exist—does this constitute ignorance? If so, why not simply say it does not exist? This is because the reasoning here does not allow another cause to be established. If one claims that one should establish "unknowability" as a cause, this is also not the case; it is not definitive. Alternatively, although a thing exists, due to deficient conditions, it cannot be known. Therefore, "unknowability" is not a cause for non-existence. If one establishes non-existence as the cause for not knowing, then there can never be a similar example. So "unknowability" is said to allow for a cause. If one says that without a cause, there is the fault of non-establishment, this is unreasonable, because it is not non-established. If the beginning of samsara were definitely not non-existent, then the first body would arise without a cause. If there is no first cause, later ones should also have no cause, since there is no difference in the cause of the earlier and later bodies. If that is accepted, then all actions—pure and impure—would be without results. But since this is not accepted, the previously established statement that the beginning is non-existent is not a non-established cause.
If one claims that because samsara has no beginning it should be like space without an end, this is also unreasonable, because external seeds are similar. For example, external grains arise from previous seeds. Although they have no beginning, when they encounter burning, soaking, or other destructive conditions, they are permanently destroyed. Similarly, samsara, produced by the succession of afflictions and karma, has no beginning. Yet, through repeated practice of the opposing forces to greed, hatred, and delusion, the aggregates of samsara are ultimately not produced; this is the end. If emptiness and non-production characterize it, then there is no end. Since samsara has production, how can it have no end? We see that things that arise definitely come to an end. Since samsara arises, it must by nature cease. Therefore, it is well established that the beginning is unknowable, because it does not exist. Thus, one should not claim the Buddha is not all-knowing because He does not know the beginning.
Regarding the claim that He did not foresee the Sundarī incident and allowed His followers to commit evil: This is also unreasonable. Even though He foresaw it, He did not reveal it to avoid many faults. If the Buddha had said beforehand, "This is not my doing; it is someone else," then those evildoers' malicious intentions would grow stronger, and the neutral people would doubt: "Did the Buddha or the other person commit this offense?" Furthermore, a great person does not reveal others' faults. The Buddha is a great person—how could He reveal others' evil? Revealing their evil would cause countless people to hate the Buddha and obstruct their entry into the true Dharma. Moreover, the Buddha saw that both He and the others would suffer slander and short life as a fixed karma. Also, to console monks in the future, the Buddha foresaw that in the final period of the Dharma, many monks with learning and discipline would be slandered and die. He wanted them to console themselves: "The Great Sage, with all defilements and habits uprooted, renowned everywhere, even up to the highest heaven, still suffers slander. So how much more should we?" With this thought, they can calmly practice good deeds. Observing these certain gains and losses, the Buddha did not reveal Himself beforehand. Moreover, after seven days, the matter resolved itself, showing the Buddha's eminence and placing blame on the outsiders. Therefore, one should not claim the Buddha is not all-knowing because He did not reveal Himself.
By the same reasoning, it should be understood that the reason for not refuting the slander from Cencā has already been explained.
Regarding the reason for allowing Devadatta to become a monk in the Buddha's dispensation: This has deep meaning. The Buddha saw that if Devadatta had not become a monk, he would surely become a powerful wheel-turning king, killing countless people, destroying the Dharma, and falling into miserable realms with little hope of escape. By ordaining him, he planted profound roots of goodness that could not be planted otherwise. To protect many people from harm and to prevent evil, the Buddha allowed his ordination.
Regarding the claim that the Buddha did not know in advance whether the ascetic Udraka was alive or dead: This is also unreasonable, because as soon as He thought of it, He knew. When one consciousness is engaged with another object, one cannot simultaneously know the object of another consciousness. The Buddha's mind was first occupied with teaching Dharma and had not yet examined the ascetic's life or death. Later, when He wanted to know, as soon as He directed His mind, He knew that the ascetic had already passed away. If He had wanted to know and could not, one could say He is not all-knowing. To say He is ignorant because His mind was on another object not yet attended to is unreasonable.
Regarding the claim that He did not predict the difficulties that would arise in Pāṭaliputra: This is also unreasonable, because He predicted them indirectly. He spoke implicitly, saying: "If one is protected from one danger, another danger will cause harm." The Buddha foresaw that if one protects against one danger, another will inevitably harm a different one. Regarding three specific dangers, He advised each to protect himself so that others could not harm him. Thus, He implicitly predicted that dangers were inevitable. How can one say the Buddha is not all-knowing because of this?
Regarding the claim that He did not foretell the eighteen different schools within His own Sangha: This is also unreasonable, because He did foretell them. For example, He said: "In the future, there will be monks who do not properly understand my meaning. They will hold different schools and criticize each other." The Buddha taught briefly two kinds of protection: internal and external. Internal means one should follow the methods shown in the sūtras, such as "the Black Discussion and the Great Discussion," for inspection and protection. External means one should follow the six lovable qualities taught in the sūtras, for gathering and protection. Moreover, it is said in the *Saṃgīti Sūtra*: "In my Dharma, there will be different theories." The Sūtra lists a great variety of disputed doctrines, such as some saying that only the vajra-like concentration can cut afflictions at once, others holding different views on many points.
Such and similar disputes, countless in number, masters and disciples passing them on for hundreds of thousands of followers, expounding them for monastics and laypeople. In my Dharma, in the future, there will be such disputes, different for gain and fame, poorly spoken and poorly received, not realizing true reality and showing it upside down. Even within this very school, there will be such disputations in the past, present, and future. The Buddha clearly foretold this. Yet His disciples disregard the sacred word, each clinging to their own tradition and criticizing others. The fault lies with the disciples, not with the Buddha. One cannot slander the All-Knowing One because of this.
Regarding the claim that karma is indeterminate: This reasoning is also incorrect. Because such karma exists, one must admit that there is a type of karma that can produce indeterminate results. If it did not exist, then the path of cultivation and cutting off afflictions would be in vain, because all karma would definitely produce results. Therefore, one should not slander the All-Knowing One based on these or other reasons. The World-Honored One possesses inconceivable, rare qualities, vast fame and virtue. Unreasonable slander incurs immense faults. All wise people should have faith that the Buddha possesses all knowledge. Therefore, I first pay homage to Him.