---
title: "大乘法苑義林章 · 10 問答分別"
description: "窥基，唐代高僧，唯识宗实际创始人玄奘的嫡传弟子，撰写了《大乘法苑义林章》。此书创作于佛教鼎盛的唐朝，是唯识宗的重要论著。全书系统阐述唯识教义，分章辨析法相、唯识、三性等核心义理，组织严密，义理精深。它被誉为大乘佛教的教理百科全书，是研究唯识学不可或缺的权威典籍，对汉传佛教思想发展影响深远。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcz6dopr003il1042r7cnu6b"
---

第十問答分別者。問此斷煩惱三世之中於何說斷。答薩婆多等所說不同。今依大乘。瑜伽第五十八云。非斷去來今。然說斷三世非過去。有隨眠心任運滅故。性已無何所斷。未來性未生。體現無何所斷。現在有隨眠心。此剎那後性必不住。更何所斷。又有隨眠．離隨眠心二不和合。是故現在亦非所斷。然從他言音．內正作意二因緣故。正見相應隨所治惑能治心生。諸有隨眠所治心滅。此心生時彼心滅時平等平等。對治生滅道理應知。正見相應能對治心。於現在世無有隨眠。於過去世亦無隨眠。此剎那後離隨眠心。在未來世亦無隨眠。從此已後於已轉依。以斷隨眠身相續中所有。後得世間所攝善無記心。去來今位皆離隨眠。是故三世皆得說斷。問所斷煩惱有退不退。答依薩婆多。見道速疾道斷已永不退。其無學道住不動者不退。退種性者。退法．思法．護法．住法。必勝進本性不退。退法進成者退。大眾部等。退預流果非阿羅漢。阿羅漢見修二道極堅牢故。見道不然故退。今大乘聖道斷隨眠必不退。伏者有退義。涅槃經言。若世俗道而斷煩惱。以還起故說名無常。瑜伽亦然。退等種姓依定障建立。非退果。然菩薩等。以無漏道所伏。亦不退自在故。如舍利弗至十信第六心猶退。以退起煩惱先有漏伏故。問云何名斷。若是現行久已自滅。若種子者道不可俱。云何名斷。答五十八云。但斷隨眠。以煩惱纏先已捨故。斷隨眠故說名為斷。何以故。雖纏已斷。未斷隨眠。諸煩惱纏數復現起。若隨眠斷。纏與隨眠畢竟不起。亦名斷纏。此說聖道正斷隨眠。若伏斷者折種子力令不生現。名伏現行。隨眠雖復與道不俱。然如。問前義說之為斷三心真見道法觀既細。必兼生觀即斷生執。何故生執即三心斷。法唯二心。應細三心麁二心故。答法觀雖細必帶生觀。第二剎那不斷生執。如十地中斷惑法觀。習氣可斷種不可除。不障此道故。加行之心不欣斷故。竝二品斷。不爾違論。問為總緣作意能斷煩惱。為別緣作意能斷煩惱。答佛地論中釋自共相略有三說。有義。二量在散心位。不說定位。定位緣一切皆現量攝。此師雖言定心緣一切。不說斷惑定總別相。然准義知。唯共相斷。定心通緣自共故。第二師云。定心唯緣自相。然由共相方便所引說緣共相。所顯理者就方便說。名知共相。不如是者名知自相。由此道理。或說真如。名空無我諸法共相。或說真如二空所顯非是共相。此師意說。就方便說可名共相。說觀中證可名自相。即顯斷惑唯自相觀非共相也。第三師云。如實義者。彼因明論立自共相與此少異。彼說一切法上實義皆名自相。以諸法上自相．共相。各附已體不共他故。若分別心。立一種類能詮所詮通在諸法。如縷貫花名為共相。此要散心分別假立是比量境。一切定心離此分別皆名現量。雖緣諸法苦無常等。亦一一法各別有故名為自相。真如雖是共相所顯。以是諸法自實性故。自有相故亦非共相。不可以其與一切法不一不異即名共相。自相亦與一切共相不一異故。此義意言。總為無我共相所顯。一一別證體是自相。即可通為二觀能斷。能顯是共相。詮為唯識無我等故。據法竝自相。一一法真理皆能了知故。緣起經下卷言。真諦聖智於真智境非安立義。總相緣故名頓現觀。一剎那中由加行引。能普遍知名總相緣。非一一法真如妙理而不別知名為總相。佛地自會故不相違。問此諸煩惱從何說斷。答從彼相應及所緣故煩惱可斷。所以者何。對治道生。煩惱不起。得無生法。是故說名斷彼相應。由本識中煩惱種子皆悉斷盡。心等起時無煩惱俱名相應斷。相應斷已不復緣境。故從所緣亦說名斷。無能繫心縛所緣故。此文依斷煩惱障說。菩薩斷者。由修止觀能斷煩惱。由修此二觀於無相。故諸相縛皆得解脫。相縛脫故諸麁重縛亦得解脫。故世尊言。相縛縛眾生。亦由麁重縛。善雙修止觀。方乃俱解脫。問云何次第斷諸煩惱。答謂在家者。最初應斷不善事業及諸惡見。次後應斷樂出家障。謂欲．恚．害三種尋思。次後應斷不定心者三摩地障。謂即眷屬．國土．不死三種尋思。次斷得作意障。謂樂遠離品身諸麁重。次斷見道煩惱。次斷修道煩惱。次斷屬苦．屬憂．屬樂．屬喜．屬捨諸定障品障礙煩惱。次後別有應斷所知障品諸障。由前次第應斷二障。問見道修道名正斷道。何頓何漸。答見道章中當廣顯示。

> \## Question 10: Clarifying Distinctions \*\*Q:\*\* When we say “cut off afflictions,” in which of the three times (past, present, future) are they cut off? \*\*A:\*\* Schools like the Sarvāstivāda gave different explanations. According to Mahāyāna, as \*Yogācārabhūmiśāstra\*, Scroll 58 says: It is not that past, present, or future are individually cut off, yet we say afflictions are cut off in all three times. The past is not cut off because a mind with dormant afflictions (an afflicted mind) naturally ceases. Since its nature is already gone, what would there be to cut? The future has not yet arisen; its essence is not present, so there is nothing to cut. In the present, a mind with dormant afflictions will inevitably not last beyond this moment. After this instant, it will cease on its own—so what more is there to cut? Moreover, a mind with dormant afflictions and a mind without them do not coexist. Therefore, the present is also not what is cut. However, through two causes—hearing another’s speech and one’s own proper attention—a mind aligned with right view arises, along with the antidote to the affliction being overcome. At that moment, the afflicted mind (mind with dormant afflictions) ceases. When this mind arises, that mind ceases; they are equal and simultaneous. This is the principle of the antidote’s arising and ceasing. The mind aligned with right view, which serves as the antidote, has no dormant afflictions in the present moment. It also has none in the past. After this instant, the mind free from afflictions will also have no dormant afflictions in the future. From then onward, for one who has already transformed the basis \[of existence\] (āśraya-parāvṛtti), all virtuous and neutral minds of the post-attainment state (which belong to the worldly sphere) are free from dormant afflictions, whether in past, present, or future. Therefore, it is said that afflictions are cut off in all three times. --- \*\*Q:\*\* Do the afflictions that are cut off regress or not? \*\*A:\*\* According to the Sarvāstivāda, afflictions cut off by the swift path of insight (darśana-mārga) never regress. For those in the stage of no-more-learning (aśaikṣa), those abiding in the unshakable state do not regress. Those with regressive natures include the types that fall back, reflect, protect, and abide. Those who naturally do not regress are the ones who always progress. Those who were originally of the regressive type but then advanced may still regress. According to the Mahāsāṃghika, the fruit of stream-entry (srotāpanna) can regress, but an arhat cannot. For an arhat, both the path of insight and the path of cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga) are extremely firm, unlike the path of insight for stream-enterers. In Mahāyāna, afflictions cut off by the noble path never regress. Only suppressed afflictions may regress. The \*Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra\* says: If afflictions are cut off by worldly paths, they are called impermanent because they can arise again. The \*Yogācārabhūmiśāstra\* agrees. The differences in regressive natures (like the “retreating” or “protecting” types) are established based on obstacles to meditative absorption (samāpatti), not on regressing from the fruit itself. Bodhisattvas, however, suppress afflictions with the noble path and do not regress because they have mastery. Even Shariputra, for instance, can regress as far as the sixth stage of the ten faiths, because the afflictions that arise were previously suppressed only by worldly means. --- \*\*Q:\*\* What does it mean to “cut off” afflictions? If we mean the manifest afflictions, they have already ceased on their own long ago. If we mean the seeds, the path cannot coexist with them. So how do we say they are cut off? \*\*A:\*\* \*Yogācārabhūmiśāstra\*, Scroll 58 says: Only the dormant potential (anuśaya) is cut off, because the manifest afflictions themselves have already been abandoned. Cutting off the dormant potential is what is called “cutting off.” Why? Even if manifest afflictions are cut, if the dormant potential remains, the afflictions will repeatedly arise again. But if the dormant potential is cut, then both manifest afflictions and their underlying potential never arise again. This is also called cutting off the manifest afflictions. This refers to the noble path directly cutting off the dormant potential. When we speak of “suppressive cutting,” it means weakening the seed’s power so that it does not produce manifest afflictions. This is called suppressing the manifest. Although the dormant potential does not coexist with the path, it is still said to be “cut” in the sense described above. In the three moments of true insight (satyābhisamaya), the dharma-contemplation (法觀) is subtle and necessarily includes a personal contemplation. So why is the self-grasping cut only in three moments? The dharma-grasping is cut in just two moments. Shouldn’t the subtle (self) have three moments and the coarse (dharma) have two? A: Although dharma-contemplation is subtle, it always includes personal contemplation. It does not cut self-grasping in the second moment. This is like the ten grounds (daśabhūmi), where the dharma-contemplation can cut habitual tendencies but not the seeds directly, because those seeds do not obstruct this path. The preparatory mind does not aspire to cut them entirely. Thus both are cut gradually, in two stages. If this were not the case, it would contradict the scriptures. --- \*\*Q:\*\* Do we cut afflictions through a holistic meditation (总缘作意) or through an individual meditation (别缘作意)? \*\*A:\*\* The \*Buddhabhūmiśāstra\* gives three explanations regarding self-characteristics (自相, svalakṣaṇa) and shared characteristics (共相, sāmānya-lakṣaṇa): 1. The first view holds that the two types of sense-perception (现量, direct perception; 比量, inference) apply only to the scattered mind (散心), not to the absorptive state (定位). In absorption, all objects are perceived directly. Although this master says the meditative mind perceives all objects, he does not say that cutting afflictions requires holistic or individual characteristics. However, by inference, only shared characteristics cut afflictions. The meditative mind can perceive both self and shared characteristics. 2. The second view says the meditative mind only perceives self-characteristics. However, when guided by the expedient of shared characteristics, it is spoken of as understanding shared characteristics. The principle revealed is described, from the expedient perspective, as knowing shared characteristics. Otherwise, it is called knowing self-characteristics. Thus, sometimes suchness is called the shared characteristic of emptiness and selflessness, and sometimes it is not considered a shared characteristic at all. This master intends: from the expedient perspective, it is called shared; but in direct realization, it is self-characteristics. Therefore, cutting afflictions involves only self-characteristic meditation, not shared-characteristic meditation. 3. The third view holds that, according to true meaning, the logic treatise’s (hetuvidyaśāstra) definition of self and shared characteristics differs slightly. It says the real essence of all phenomena is called self-characteristics, because both self and shared characteristics adhere to their own entities and are not shared with others. However, the discriminative mind establishes categories and verbal expressions that apply universally, like threading flowers—this is called shared characteristics. Only the scattered, discriminative mind can conceive this; it is the object of inference. All meditative minds, free from discrimination, are direct perception. Even when contemplating impermanence or suffering, each phenomenon has its own characteristic, so it is called self-characteristics. Though suchness is revealed through shared characteristics, it is the self-nature of all phenomena, possessing its own characteristic. Therefore, it is not merely a shared characteristic. Just because suchness is neither one nor different from all phenomena does not mean it should be called a shared characteristic—since self-characteristics are also neither one nor different from all shared characteristics. Thus, the meaning is: Holistic selflessness, as revealed by the shared characteristic, is actualized individually—so both types of meditation can cut afflictions. The ability to reveal is the shared characteristic, expressed as “consciousness-only” or “selflessness.” But all phenomena have self-characteristics; the truth of each phenomenon can be understood individually. The \*Pratītyasamutpāda Sūtra\* says: The noble truth of the noble ones, with respect to the directly perceived state, is not based on constructed meaning (非安立). It is realized as a whole, being a sudden direct realization (顿现观). In one moment, guided by the preparatory practice, one perfectly knows the whole—this is called holistic contemplation. It is not that the wonderfully subtle truth of each individual phenomenon is not separately known. The \*Buddhabhūmiśāstra\* reconciles these differences, so there is no actual contradiction. --- \*\*Q:\*\* With respect to what are afflictions said to be cut off? \*\*A:\*\* Afflictions can be cut off from both their “correspondence” (相应) and their “object” (所缘). Why? When the antidote path arises, afflictions no longer arise; one attains the state of non-arising. This is called cutting off their correspondence. Since the seed of afflictions in the root consciousness is completely eradicated, when the mind arises again, it has no accompanying afflictions—this is “cutting off correspondence.” Once correspondence is cut, one no longer grasps at objects. Therefore, it is also said that afflictions are cut off with respect to their objects—because there is no longer a mind that binds one to them. This text discusses cutting off the affliction-obstacle (kleśa-āvaraṇa). For bodhisattvas, cutting afflictions includes cultivating calm-abiding (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā). By cultivating these two, they contemplate the signless (animitta). Thus, all sign-obsessions (nimitta-bandhana) are liberated. When sign-obsessions are liberated, all heavy-subtle obstacles (dauṣṭhulya-bandhana) are also liberated. Therefore, the Buddha said: “Sign-obsessions bind beings; heavy-subtle obstacles also bind them. If one perfectly cultivates both calm-abiding and insight, both will be liberated.” --- \*\*Q:\*\* In what order are afflictions cut off? \*\*A:\*\* For householders, first they should cut off unwholesome actions and wrong views. Next, they should cut off the obstacles to leaving home, which are the three kinds of mental distractions: desire (kāma), ill-will (vyāpāda), and harmfulness (vihiṃsā). Next, they should cut off the obstacles to meditative absorption for those with unsteady minds—namely, concerns about family, country, and fear of death (the three kinds of worldly worries). Next, they should cut off the obstacles to obtaining mental engagement—bodily heaviness and coarseness that hinder delight in solitude. Next, they cut off the afflictions of the path of insight (darśana-mārga). Next, the afflictions of the path of cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga). Next, they cut off afflictions associated with the spheres of suffering, sorrow, joy, gladness, and equanimity that act as obstacles to meditative absorption. Finally, there are further obstacles to knowledge (jñeya-āvaraṇa) to be cut off in their appropriate order. Through this sequence, both obstacles (affliction-obstacle and knowledge-obstacle) are gradually eliminated. --- \*\*Q:\*\* The paths of insight and cultivation are called the “correct paths of cutting.” Which is sudden and which is gradual? \*\*A:\*\* This will be explained broadly in the chapter on the path of insight (darśana-mārga).