top page

The System of the Two Hindrances (Ijang ui)

Translation and Introduction by A. Charles Muller

[A digitized version of pp. 53–159 in Wonhyo's Philosophy of Mind, ed. by A. Charles Muller and Cuong T. Nguyen. Honolulu: UHP, 2011.]

(Updated December 8, 2016)


Due to research that I had done previously in connection with my work on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (Yuanjue jing), as well as some topics that I had encountered in graduate school courses, I had been interested in the topic of the two hindrances from a fairly early period in my studies. The section in the fifth chapter of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment 1 that describes the two hindrances consists of only a few paragraphs, thus providing only the barest outline of the topic. Further, the hindrances are discussed in that text with a Chan orientation that leaves a lot of room for ambiguity, and tends to place far greater emphasis on their cognitive dimension than is seen in earlier Indian sources. I had noticed these ambiguities during the time I was working with this text, and put it in my mind to do some further investigation of the topic at a future time. Later on, I was introduced to Wonhyo’s Ijang ui (System of the Two Hindrances) by my advisor at SUNY Stony Brook, Sung Bae Park, in conjunction with a study with our seminar on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. At that time I briefly reviewed the content of the Ijang ui, and being intrigued by it, I put it on my mental list of texts for eventual study. Thus, when I was asked by the Wonhyo translation project to help out by translating one of Wonhyo’s works, I requested the Ijang ui.

Once I actually began to work with the text, however, I was concerned that I had bitten off more than I could chew. The inherent difficulty of unpacking the arguments of the text was compounded by the fact that it is by far the most corrupted of Wonhyo’s extant works contained in the Han-guk bulgyo jeonseo. 2 Luckily, over time, I was able to deal with these difficulties. Concerning the textual errors, I was greatly aided by the availability of a more accurate edition of the text in Cho Myeonggi’s Wonhyo daesa jeonseo, where much advantage had been taken of the careful editing done on the text by Ōchō Enichi. I was also lucky to have embarked on this task at a time when the Taishō canon was fully available in digital format. 3 The identification of textual errors, as well as the location of citations that I was able to do over a period of months, would have probably taken more than a decade otherwise, and, as has happened in the case of treatments of this text by earlier scholars, many citations would have simply remained unlocated. The ready availability of these source texts was an indispensable aid in understanding the context of the discussions.

The effort required to unravel and properly communicate these seminal issues in Buddhist philosophies of mind led me through extensive research of the Yogâcāra/Tathāgatagarbha texts and doctrines involved, so I have come out of this project a rather different scholar than the one who entered into it—to the extent that working on the Ijang ui ended up changing the entire course of my research career. In this regard, I owe much credit to my co-editor in this volume, Cuong Nguyen, without whose help in the early stages this translation would have ended up being wholly inadequate. Cuong’s deep grasp of both Indian philosophy and literary Chinese allowed him to make revisions and suggestions on earlier drafts that were extensive, and I am deeply indebted to him for whatever degree of success this work is ultimately judged. I am also indebted to the many learned and patient scholars of Yogâcāra who spent time helping to catch up as a relative latecomer to this field. This includes, at least: Dan Lusthaus, Bill Waldron, Leslie Kawamura, Tao Jiang, Mario D’Amato, John Dunne, John Keenan, Jeffrey Hopkins, Makoto Yoshimura, Shigeki Moro, Tomoaki Kitsukawa, and Hidenori Sakuma.

I would also like to offer special thanks and congratulations to my long-time mentor at Stony Brook, Sung Bae Park, for whom the complete translation of Wonhyo’s extant works has been a lifelong dream, which now comes to fruition largely because of his vision and unstinting efforts toward seeing it through to the end. Finally, all of the participants in this project also owe our deep thanks to Robert Buswell, who jump-started the project at a critical juncture, at the same time arranging the publication agreement with University of Hawai’i Press and getting the volumes through the stage of production. Without his rare combination of scholarly, editorial, and managerial talents this project may have never reached fruition.

A. Charles Muller

Tokyo, 2010

[Updated: 2016-12-08T13:06:17.924+09:00]

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Translation

1. Introduction

1.1. The Two Hindrances

1.1.1. Development of the Hindrances

The two hindrances as articulated in Mahāyāna Buddhism texts are the afflictive hindrances (kleśa-āvaraṇa) and the cognitive hindrances (jñeya-āvaraṇa), which together constitute a characteristic Buddhist way of categorizing the broad range of phenomena that engender suffering, impel continuity of the cycle of rebirth, impede the attainment of liberation, and obstruct the ability to see things as they really are. These hindrances include all psychological functions associated with nescience, delusion, affliction, suffering, anxiety, and so forth. The systematization of the individual factors that constitute the mind and its functions, and along with this, the hindrances, was begun in the Abhidharmic texts with the establishment of the seventy-five dharmas. Late Abhidharma had begun the project of taking up the negative mental functions and categorizing them according to their general afflictive or cognitive character. The clear and formal classification into these two broad categories followed in the course of the composition of the Yogâcāra texts, including early works such as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and starting from roughly the same time, an analogous categorization of mental disturbances into the two categories of cognitive and affective began to be established in early Tathāgatagarbha texts such as the Śrīmālā-sūtra, the Ratnagotravibhāga, and other works. The basic rationale for the division of hindrances into the two types of afflictive and cognitive is fairly straightforward, and is reflective of the Buddhist view of the fundamental causes of the human condition of suffering.

Early Buddhism points out eight kinds of suffering: These include the four basic forms of suffering: birth, aging, sickness and death, along with the four psychological forms of suffering: separation from the attractive, association with the repugnant, inability to fulfill our desires, and the suffering from the nebulous character of the self constructed from the five skandhas—in other words, our inability to know exactly who or what we are at any given time. The first three of the four psychological forms can be associated with the latter two of the three poisons: attraction (desire, craving, etc.) and dislike (ill-will, antipathy, etc.). This pair arises from the first of the three poisons—“ nescience” (avidyā). Nescience, however, is a composite rubric, having various forms and interpretations, and while it is usually seen as the conditioning agent for the negative emotive factors, it is also in turn conditioned by them.

In early Indian Buddhism, the quintessential form of nescience that leads to the eight forms of suffering introduced above is the errant mental function of imputing the existence of a singular and enduring self, or ego (ātman). This self is believed in, and attached to. It develops the conceit “I am” (asmi-māna), and thus desires to accumulate things, create stability for itself, and compare itself with other selves. These other selves end up being judged —through this self’s own colored view—as superior, inferior, or mistakenly equal. Name, profit, and comparative evaluation, become automatic preoccupations of this self, and thus it cannot but continually suffer from egoistic competitiveness, pride, jealousy, ill-will, resentment, and a whole gamut of afflicted thoughts and emotions. These are known as “afflictions” because they prevent sentient beings from experiencing mental freedom and balance. They constrict the scope of our activities, bring pain, and are the factors that prevent sentient beings from experiencing the blissful state known as nirvāṇa— the end goal of practice as understood in early Indian Buddhism.

Śākyamuni taught that the afflictions could be removed by practicing his middle way of the eightfold path, summed up in the three approaches of morality, concentration, and wisdom, with the wisdom aspect (prajñā) referring primarily to the deconstruction of this above-mentioned imputed self and its concomitant attachment. A moral life that includes close observance of one’s thoughts, words, and deeds is seen here as essential to creating the proper environment for the destruction of self-centered tendencies, and the focus on deconstructive mental exercises such as dependent arising could not be conducted with any significant effect without the cultivation of concentration. This, in a nutshell, is what later Great Vehicle (Mahāyāna) thinkers called the approach of Lesser Vehicle (Hīnayāna) Buddhism—a form of practice that is aimed at the removal of one’s afflictions through these three general approaches.

Mahayanists, when describing this prior model for the sake of using it as a foil, labeled two related types of practitioners who were exemplary in their practice of this path: the śrāvakas—proximate disciples of an enlightened teacher who could develop themselves based upon hearing his teachings (translated with such terms as “voice hearers”, “disciples,” etc.), and pratyekabuddhas—religious practitioners who had developed an advanced degree of self-sufficiency that allowed them to carry this practice out on their own (translated with such terms as “solitary realizers”, “individual illuminates,” etc.). The content of the realization of this early Indian path to arhatship was articulated by the various branches of Indian scholastic (Abhidharma) Buddhism.

Although the attachment to an imputed self was identified at an early stage in Indian Buddhism as the source of all suffering, the earliest texts do not seek to establish a clear distinction in types of impediments to liberation into the pair of cognitive and afflictive. But such a distinction can readily be inferred, for example, by setting apart the mental action of imputation of a self and attachment thereto as a cognitive error, and all the resultant troubles as afflictive errors. It is clear from the start that even in the eightfold path, many of the objects of contemplation are markedly cognitive in character (for example, meditation on the twelve-link process of dependent arising).

As speculation regarding the precise functions of consciousness developed in the Abhidharma texts, concrete signs of this kind of bifurcation began to appear, such as in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, where we see for the first time the technical terminology of “two hindrances,” designating a pair called afflictive hindrances (K. beonnoe jang), and hindrances to liberation (haetal jang). In this case the afflictive hindrances refer to the manifestly active afflictions that serve to obstruct the emergence of undefiled wisdom, and thus obstruct attainment of liberation through wisdom (hye haetal). However, even if one overcomes these hindrances and is able to attain liberation through wisdom, one may still be obstructed by the subtler hindrances to liberation, which impede the attainment of the concentration of total cessation (myeolchin jeong). Thus, the latter type (also known as the “cessation hindrances;” jeongjang) are said to impede both types of liberation. The prior are seen as being constituted by defiled nescience (K. yeom-o muji), and the latter by undefiled nescience (K. buryeom-o muji). 4

The shift from the doctrines of early Indian scholasticism to the Mahāyāna-based Yogâcāra is well-reflected in the development of this two-hindrance framework. The inclinations and character of the bodhisattva as Mahāyāna hero are spelled out in extensive detail, with focus being placed on three intertwined concepts: emptiness (śūnyatā), compassion (karuṇā), and enlightenment (bodhi), which supersede the prior set of no-self (anātman), indifference (apekṣā), and cessation (nirvāṇa). In defining the course of the bodhisattva’s practice through the five paths, the Yogâcāras took great pains to include the two Lesser Vehicle practitioners, in part, at least, so that fine and detailed distinctions could be made between their practices and progress in comparison with that of the bodhisattvas. The key element utilized in making this distinction is the categorization of all mental disturbances (kleśa, doṣa) into two types: (1) the afflictive hindrances (kleśa-āvaraṇa), which include most of the emotive, intellectual, and sensory defilements that had been identified by the Abhidharma scholars, and (2) a newly defined category, called the cognitive hindrances (jñeya-āvaraṇa). 5

The general outline given to these two kinds of hindrances in basic Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha texts formulaically explains the afflictive hindrances to be the sole object of the religious practice of the adherents of the two vehicles. As Wonhyo will show us, however, this hard distinction does not hold up under close scrutiny, since the imputation of, and attachment to a self, along with a lack of thorough recognition of such things as dependent arising and impermanence clearly have a cognitive dimension. Of course, the bodhisattvas must also overcome the afflictive hindrances, but they must also be prepared, at a fairly early juncture, to cope with the correction of obstructions to insight, which lie outside the purview of the awareness and practice of the Lesser Vehicle adherents. What, exactly are these cognitive hindrances?

The establishment of the cognitive hindrances in the Yogâcāra framework is directly related to the appearance of the Great Vehicle emptiness doctrine. The Mahāyāna teaching of emptiness took the original doctrine of no-self to a new level by arguing that it was not only the individual personality that lacked an intrinsic and defining nature, but also all the objective “things” (dharmas) that we perceive, whether these be physical objects, mental images, or linguistic constructs. It was understood by Mahayanists that the uncritical acceptance of the reality of the elements of our existence was a far subtler and pervasive stumbling block than the imputation of the existence of an enduring self, and without overcoming the former, the tendency to reify a concept of self would be all the more difficult to eradicate. Thus, they said, to only eradicate the notion of a self in the way of a lesser-vehicle arhat was a stage far removed from that of Buddhahood, which implied the attainment of bodhi— “enlightenment.” The cognitive hindrances then, were seen to be operating at a subtler level of mental function than the afflictive hindrances. Also, while the karmic moral quality of the afflictive hindrances was understood to be of negative value, the cognitive hindrances were for the most part understood as being karmically indeterminate, or neutral (avyākṛta)—a characteristic that would also tend to make them more difficult to identify and treat.

In the introduction to this volume we outlined the intertwined development of the Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha streams of philosophy in India and East Asia. In that discussion it was pointed out that as time passed, the degree of confluence of discourse and technical terminology between these two streams steadily grew. Interestingly, it is the terminology of the two hindrances that is among the first to be shared between the two. For instance, the two hindrances begin to figure prominently in such texts as the Ratnagotravibhāga 6 before the Tathāgatagarbha texts incorporate any real discussion of detailed Yogâcāric categorizations of regions of consciousness, seeds, habit energies, and so forth. And although, as Wonhyo shows in his treatise, the precise technical definitions of the hindrances differ in interesting ways between these two streams of discourse, their general point and meaning are the same. Thus, the discussion of the hindrances provides a unique standpoint for comparing the Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha doctrines, a point that was obviously not lost on Wonhyo.

1.1.2. Defining the Hindrances in Detail

In their standard Yogâcāra interpretation, the afflictive hindrances include all the various forms of affliction enumerated in the Yogâcāra scriptures and treatises. Based on the reification of an imagined self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), there arise the six primary afflictions. From these six afflictions are derived the twenty secondary afflictions, as well as the ninety-eight, 104, 128 afflictions, etc. These manifest themselves in “actively entangling” form, “latent” form, “debilitating” form, “seed” form, as habit energies, and in a range of sub-varieties of strength and weakness, coarseness and subtlety, and intermixture. Generally speaking, they are karmic—i.e., in addition to being the direct causes and manifestations of suffering, they create bonds to cyclic existence, enmeshing sentient beings into perpetual rebirth. Thus, by definition, they obstruct the attainment of liberation—nirvāṇa. This means that the afflictive hindrances receive their name based primarily on their role as the agents, rather than objects, of obstruction.

The cognitive hindrances are subtler obstructions of awareness that are grounded in discrimination and attachment by cognitive functions. In the basic Yogâcāra explanation, all cognitive hindrances are ultimately derived from the reification of imaginary dharmas (objective phenomena). The Sanskrit jñeya, which can be interpreted in English as “the knowable(s)”, or “the known” was translated into Chinese (here, provided with the Korean reading) as soji— “that which is known,” or “objects of cognition,” etc. From a certain perspective, the initial orientation for the naming of these hindrances is opposite from that of the afflictive hindrances, since, in the case of the cognitive hindrances, it is the things that should be known (reality, thusness, the noble truths, correctly apprehended dharmas, etc.) that are subject to obstruction, rather than being the obstructing agents. But there is also a sense in which those things that are cognized end up being taken as the obstructions, and thus the definition of the cognitive hindrances is more complicated. In any case, whereas it is the afflictive hindrances that directly bring about karmic suffering and rebirth in the three realms, it is the cognitive hindrances that keep sentient beings in a state of misapprehension of reality, allowing them to continue making the errors that allow for, at best, the nonelimination of the afflictive hindrances, and at worst, the creation of new afflictions. At the beginning of his explanation of the “substance of the hindrances” in the Ijang ui, Wonhyo provides a basic definition as follows:

Led by the attachment to person, the [six] fundamental afflictions and the [twenty] derivative afflictions, such as anger, resentment, concealing, and so forth constitute the nature of the afflictive hindrances. If we take into account the other dharmas that are associated with these afflictions, including attendant factors, the karma they produce, as well as the karmic retribution that is experienced, all can be seen as playing a role in constituting the afflictive hindrances.

What constitutes the cognitive hindrances? Led by attachment to dharmas, they have as their substance deluded conceptualization and discrimination, along with attachment to teachings, pride, nescience, and so forth. Taking into account the secondary dharmas that can be included as cognitive afflictions, there are also the attendant factors and their marks that are attached to. 7

The relationship between the two kinds of hindrances in their basic Yogâcāra definition has a rational, clearly defined roots-to-branches structure. The cognitive hindrances, which represent subtler errors that are mistaken functions of awareness, serve as the basis of the afflictive hindrances. The cognitive hindrances usually do not in themselves produce negative karma, since in most cases they do not have moral retribution associated with their function. The afflictive hindrances are behavioral habits that are always contaminated to some degree, and in the majority of cases, bring about undesirable moral retribution. When the two hindrances are discussed in the context of the Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha stages in which they are removed (such as the paths of seeing and cultivation, or the ten bodhisattva grounds) the afflictive hindrances are removed earlier by both bodhisattvas and adherents of the two vehicles (who rely on self-salvifically oriented practices) and the cognitive hindrances are removed later, by bodhisattvas only, through practices that are empowered by emptiness and compassion. 8

1.2. Process of the Development of Two Hindrances Systems

Throughout the Mahāyāna texts where the hindrances are invoked, their most common function is to serve as a means of distinguishing the content of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna paths. The general characterization is made that the practices of the adherents of the two vehicles (śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas) are limited in their focus and application of contemplation to the afflictive hindrances, while the practices of the bodhisattvas can be applied to both. In Yogâcāra, this means that the two-vehicle practitioners are limited in their degree of enlightenment to their realization of selflessness to that of their recognition of anātman, and thus only attain the Hīnayāna nirvāṇa, whereas the bodhisattvas penetrate further, to the realization of śūnyatā and can hence attain bodhi equal to the buddhas. While the Tathāgatagarbha texts do not define the causes of the hindrances directly in terms of attachment to selfhood of persons and dharmas, their descriptions of the hindrances agree in their making of this Hīnayāna/Mahāyāna distinction in terms of level of enlightenment attained.

The development of a comprehensive systematic description of the hindrances in both of the systems of Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha occurs rather late in comparison with the finalization of other facets of their respective doctrines, appearing at first only rarely, then with gradually increasing frequency in a broad range of texts over a period of a couple of centuries. At the earliest stages, the hindrances are mentioned with almost no explanation, usually as simple markers to indicate the completion of a certain set of practices, or the attainment of a certain stage. 9

Although most scholars tend to associate the two hindrances with the Yogâcāra system, in fact, the earliest effort in East Asia to thoroughly define and systematize the hindrances, done by Jingying Huiyuan (523–592) in his commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith [hereafter AMF], 10 is based solely on Tathāgatagarbha texts. This discussion, occupying three full pages in the Taishō canon (T 1843.44.188b29-191a1), arises as a long digression within the commentary. In the AMF itself, the hindrances are invoked in a cryptic manner, barely explained at all. Not long after this, Zhiyi’s (538–597) compilers publish a much shorter, but nonetheless valuable analysis of the hindrances in the Mohe zhiguan—one that shows a close relationship to Huiyuan’s model. 11 Essays that aim to fully define and systematize the hindrances reach their peak in the middle of the seventh century, when during roughly the same period, the Fodijing lun [FDJL] and the Cheng weishi lun [CWSL] summarize the system of the hindrances in a way that generally represents the understanding of the Weishi school, while Wonhyo composes the “magnum opus” of two hindrances theory, the Ijang ui. Wonhyo’s full-length monograph, is, like Huiyuan’s work, a digression written in the process of the composition of a commentary to the AMF, which grew to such a scale that Wonhyo apparently decided to publish it separately. The Ijang ui is of critical importance, not just for hindrances discourse, but for its thorough, nonsectarian analysis of East Asian Buddhist philosophy of mind at that point in history, in that Wonhyo is the first to identify two distinct streams of hindrances discourse—what we now call the Yogâcāra tradition (as understood in the East Asian Weishi/Faxiang lineage, derived from such works as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, FDJL, etc.), and the Tathāgatagarbha tradition (derived from texts such as the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Ratnagotravibhāga, AMF, etc.).

1.2.1. The Tathāgatagarbha System of the Hindrances as Explained by Huiyuan

Huiyuan explains the content of the hindrances relying primarily on the doctrine of the four afflictive entrenchments (sa juji) and the nescience entrenchment (mumyeong juji) as first articulated in the Śrīmālā-sūtra, and later invoked in the Ratnagotravibhāga (Boseong non), Foxing lun (Bulseong non), and so forth. The four entrenchments 12 as taught in these Tathāgatagarbha texts can be understood as four underlying bases from which manifestly active afflictions are generated—and which retain the afflictions when they are in a dormant state. In other words, they are the latent aspects of the hindrances—comparable in connotation to the concept of bīja (seeds) in Yogâcāra. In the Śrīmālā-sūtra they are contrasted with active, or “arisen” afflictions (gi beonnoe —analogous to the Yogâcāra active afflictions, (chu or hyeonhaeng beonnoe). The four entrenchments are the:

  1. Entrenchment of the view of identity (gyeon ilcheo juji).
  2. Entrenchment of emotion toward objects in the desire realm (yog-ae juji).
  3. Entrenchment of emotion toward objects in the form realm (saeg-ae juji).
  4. Entrenchment of emotion toward objects in the formless realm (yuae juji).

The fifth entrenchment is entrenched nescience (mumyeong juji; Skt. *avidyā-vāsabhūmi), referring to nescience in its latent aspect as something innate and deeply embedded in the mind, which is extremely difficult to remove, and which serves as the basis for the other four entrenchments, and thus as the ultimate basis for the production of afflictions. When entrenched nescience is added to the previous four, they are spoken of as the five entrenchments (o juji). 13

Utilizing this structure, Huiyuan sees the application of the hindrances as having three levels of possible interpretation, which are distinguished on a sliding scale of differentiation between what kinds of mental functions are regarded as afflictive and what kinds are regarded as cognitive. All three categories are explained through the framework of the four/five entrenchments. These are:

  1. The first level, which is the most straightforward, is the one that takes the four afflictive entrenchments (sa ju beonnoe) to be directly equivalent to the afflictive hindrances, and the nescience entrenchments to be directly equivalent to the cognitive hindrances.
  2. In the second approach, the intrinsic natures of all five entrenchments are collectively understood to constitute the afflictive hindrances, while the inability to properly cognize distinct phenomena (sajung muji) constitutes the cognitive hindrances. In this approach, nescience is distinguished into two types: confusion in regard to principle, and confusion in regard to distinct phenomena. Huiyuan identifies this interpretation as equivalent to the understanding of the hindrances in the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith.
  3. In the third approach, the essences of the five entrenchments, as well as obscuration of cognition in regard to both principle and phenomena are taken to be the afflictive hindrances, leaving only the function of discriminating cognition itself as the cognitive hindrances. 14
Rendered schematically:

afflictive hindrances cognitive hindrances
1 four entrenchments of afflictions nescience entrenchments
2 natures of the five entrenchments, plus delusion in regard to principle delusion in regard to distinct phenomena
3 natures of the five entrenchments, plus delusion in regard to principle and phenomena discriminating cognition

At level (1), cognitive problems are clearly distinguished from afflictive problems. The narrowness of focus on the cognitive increases in the second and third levels, as cognitive error is defined first as delusive discriminating cognition, and then further as discriminating cognition itself.

The straightforward afflictive/cognitive distinction provided in level (1) that separates the nescience entrenchments from the four entrenchments of desire and aversion toward the world, can be mapped to the standard Yogâcāra explanation. 15 As for the second category, Huiyuan tells us that this is the one that corresponds to the description of the hindrances in the AMF. Hence, this is the category that Wonhyo will later label as “inexplicit” (eunmil), mainly because it shows awareness of a specific type of cognitive problem not treated in the first level—the implication of bodhisattvas lingering in meditative absorptions in thusness.

Interesting here is the third category, since it is one that, as far as I can tell, is not identified in Wonhyo's treatise. This is the definition where all five of the entrenchments, plus obscuration of both principle and phenomena constitute the afflictive hindrances, with the cognitive hindrances consisting only of dependently-arisen cognition (i.e. discriminating cognition). The bar is again raised, such that the cognitive hindrances are identified in their impedimentary effect to an even narrower range of mental function, one that in itself carries no inherent negative connotations at all. One could argue, however, that it is not incommensurate with the basic view in the AMF that any movement whatsoever of the mind is impedimentary to enlightenment. In terms of textual sources for these three types of interpretations, Huiyuan does not indicate that one interpretation refers to a reading given in any particular text, or even a particular group of texts. It is a matter of Huiyuan picking up a certain way of explaining the relationship between various forms of defilement and cognitive distortion from different sections in what is sometimes even the same text. 16

What is most important about this is that Huiyuan’s analysis ends up becoming, until the mid-seventh century appearance of the FDJL and Wonhyo’s Ijang ui, the definitive systematic discussion of the two hindrances of any kind in East Asia, since, as noted, none of the sutras or śāstras available at that time, in either Tathāgatagarbha or Yogâcāra, contain any systematic discussion comparable to this. Thus, from the East Asian perspective, the fully developed Yogâcāra/Weishi definition of the hindrances (in the FDJL, CWSL, etc.) actually appears almost a full century after that of the crystallization of the Tathāgatagarbha version in the form of Huiyuan’s above-introduced work.

An interesting question comes to mind regarding the rather abrupt leap in detail and precision to be seen in the Yogâcāra/Weishi articulation of the hindrances, going from the vague and sketchy passages in the Sṃdh, YBh, and Mahāyānasaṃgraha, to the highly systematic articulation in the FDJL and CWSL, in that there is no pure Yogâcāra text containing an intermediate level development of a hindrances system that would readily serve as a bridge between these two stages. Yet during this interim period, the model of the hindrances in the Tathāgatagarbha texts undergoes significant development in such works as the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Ratnagotravibhāga, Benye jing, AMF, and most importantly in the analyses of Huiyuan and Zhiyi. Given this fact, it may be quite possible that even if the masters of the Yogâcāra/Weishi school did not seek to directly apply the Tathāgatagarbha structure to their own articulation of the hindrances, they may well have felt pressure to flesh out their own argument to demonstrate an equivalent level of sophistication on the matter.

1.2.2. The Yogâcāra System of the Hindrances

As articulated in Yogâcāra works, the term afflictive hindrances refers primarily to all the mental factors (simso 心所) that are of unwholesome (bulseon 不善) quality—which bring suffering and anxiety to sentient beings. Included here are the factors enumerated in such categories as the six fundamental afflictions (yuk beonnoe 六煩惱) and twenty derivative afflictions (su beonnoe 隨煩惱), along with their further derivatives. In the most standard Yogâcāra definition (as one will find in the FDJL, CWSL, etc.), the afflictive hindrances are said to originate in the view of the selfhood of persons (ajip, agyeon; ātma-grāha, ātma-dṛṣṭi, etc.). They are said to be eliminated by the practices of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, as well as bodhisattvas. The cognitive hindrances are said to be derived from the fundamental error of understanding phenomena (dharmas) to have intrinsic reality (beopchip; Skt. dharma-grāha). They are noetic errors, the most subtle of which can be permanently eliminated only by bodhisattvas who have a thoroughgoing awakening to emptiness. They serve as the basis for the afflictive hindrances. The five paths of Yogâcāra practice are distinguished in terms of the bodhisattva’s ability to quell and eliminate the active manifest forms, seed forms, and karmic impressions of these two kinds of hindrances.

The earliest mention of the hindrances in the Yogâcāra tradition is seen in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra [Sṃdh], after which they appear to one extent or another in most texts, but none of the major definitive Yogâcāra śāstras, including the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra [YBh], Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha, or Madhyânta-vibhāga 17 contain a unified and thorough systematic discussion.

The diverse character of the discussions of the hindrances in the YBh reflects the composite nature of that text, in that these discussions are rather unsystematic, and address a broad range of problems. One frequent type of mention of the hindrances is identical to that seen in the Sṃdh, where the hindrances are invoked merely to summarize all the types of hindrances removed in the practices of the ten bhūmis, or some other set of stages—as the final achievement of practice. 18 The second type of recurrent mention of the hindrances in the YBh—and especially of the afflictive hindrances—is one that still shows admixture with the older Abhidharmic scheme. In this case, one or both of the two hindrances is mentioned together with the hindrances to cessation (jeongjang) or hindrances to liberation (haetal jang)—one more piece of evidence of the stratified character of the YBh in terms of stages of development. 19 On the whole, in the YBh, the notion of the two hindrances as a set pair is not yet firmly established, and therefore the afflictive hindrances can be seen mentioned in a wide variety of situations with a wide range of other hindrances, such as karmic hindrances (eopjang 業障; karmâvaraṇa), and retribution hindrances (isuk jang; 異熟障 vipākâvaraṇa). 20 There are a number of other passages where the bodhisattvas and practitioners of the two vehicles are compared in terms of purity, wisdom achieved, compassion, etc., but not in connection with anything that directly links the deliverance from the hindrances to the later-standardized definition of realization of selflessness of persons and selflessness of dharmas. This does not happen until the invocation of the two hindrances in the Tattvârtha Chapter, which establishes four increasingly profound levels of apprehension of reality. Among these four, numbers (3) and (4) are defined as levels of awareness reflecting the removal of the hindrances. 21

1.2.3. Completing the Yogâcāra Hindrances System: The Fodi jing lun [FDJL] and Cheng weishi lun [CWSL]

The mature form of two hindrances theory within Yogâcāra proper is best seen in the FDJL, which has a couple of fairly long sections that treat the hindrances in detail from the most important perspectives, including their content, function, and removal. It is quite clear that the summary of the hindrances in the CWSL is derived directly from the FDJL, or from a common source—one that was also apparently accessible to Wonhyo, as many of the lines found in the FDJL also appear unreferenced in the Ijang ui. 22

We can identify the FDJL as the primary source of the systematization of the hindrances in the form that will be taken as orthodox for Weishi Buddhism. But since the crux of these arguments is presented in more compact form in the CWSL, and since the CWSL further includes important supplementary material, we will cite here the basic definition as it is presented in the CWSL. 23 The CWSL starts as follows:

With the view of selfhood of attachment to the pervasive attachment to the reality of a self at their head [they include] the 128 fundamental afflictions, 24 as well as all the derivative afflictions that flow out from them. Since they all bring discomfort to the bodies and minds of sentient beings, and are able to obstruct nirvāṇa, they are called the afflictive hindrances. (T 1585.31.48c6–9)

What are the cognitive hindrances? With the view of selfhood of pervasive discrimination of and attachment to the reality of dharmas at their head, views, doubt, nescience, attachment, anger, pride and so forth obscure the undistorted nature of objects of cognition, and are able to obstruct bodhi. Therefore they are called the cognitive hindrances. (T 1585.31.48c10–12; emphasis mine)

We pause here to note that there is already a problem of ambiguity to be seen here, in that in listing “views, doubt, nescience, attachment, anger, pride, and so forth,” a set of mental factors from the same set of fundamental afflictions has been included in both the afflictive and cognitive categories of mental disturbances. 25 But the author of this passage (Xuanzang, we assume) is himself aware of the ambiguity, and feels compelled to defend it below. What is especially interesting about Xuanzang’s explanation, is that in his most basic definition of the hindrances, he makes an unusual and surprising reference to the Tathāgatagarbha system identified by Huiyuan.

If the cognitive hindrances include views, doubt, and so forth, how could those scriptures (i.e., the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Benye jing, and so forth, which are the sources of Huiyuan’s chart of the hindrances) explain them to be part of the nescience entrenchments? (in other words, not to be strictly categorized as afflictive, but also as cognitive problems) As the effects of nescience expand, [these too,] are generally termed nescience, and views and so forth are not excluded. In the case of hindrances of the afflictive type constituting the four entrenchments of identity-view, and attachment to desire, form, and formlessness, how could they lack pride or nescience? (which are understood in the Cheng weishi lun as cognitive hindrances). (T 1585.31.48c23–26)

This is a standout case within the corpus of Weishi literature, as Xuanzang is here actually relying on Tathāgatagarbha works to buttress his own claims. The entrenchments are concepts strictly associated with the Tathāgatagarbha system, mentioned in the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Ratnagotravibhāga, Buddha-nature Treatise, and so forth. They do not appear anywhere else in the Yogâcāra works associated with Xuanzang’s Weishi school (as we can readily confirm with a digital search of the canon). And furthermore, nowhere in the Tathāgatagarbha sutras and śāstras where the entrenchments are discussed are they ever directly linked to the two hindrances the way they have been described here. They are only mapped like this in Huiyuan’s commentary. This means that the author of the CSWL was drawing directly upon the two hindrances scheme of Huiyuan, which obviously been read in Weishi circles. Since the corresponding passages in the FDJL, which seem to be the source of this material in the CWSL contain everything else except this statement, this is no doubt a comment made by Xuanzang or one of his assistants at the time of the composition of the CWSL, in response to this specific concern.

It is of some significance that we have between Huiyuan’s analysis of the hindrances based on Tathāgatagarbha texts, and the CWSL’s analysis, based on Yogâcāra texts, a clear disparity with understanding the meaning of, and relationship between, afflictive and cognitive obstructions. But since this is a matter that Wonhyo deals with thoroughly in his treatise (and in fact, its treatment is one of his primary motivations for writing), we will not elaborate on it in detail here. The point here is to show the extent to which the scholars of the Weishi school were aware of the system of hindrances discourse that had been developing in the text associated with the Tathāgatagarbha movement, and their need to come to terms with it.

1.2.4. The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith and the Composition of the Ijang ui: The Inexplicit Approach to the Hindrances

A century after Huiyuan, Wonhyo wrote his own commentaries to the AMF, and in the process comes across the same the same terse and cryptic passage that introduces the hindrances—the passage that had pushed Huiyuan into a fairly extensive exploration of the system of the hindrances that was identifiable to him in the literature available at that time. But when Wonhyo’s turn comes, the situation is considerably more complicated, since an entirely new, significantly different, and far more systematic map of the hindrances has emerged in the form of the new Yogâcāra translations of Xuanzang, in such works as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, YBh, FDJL, CWSL, and so forth. Weonhyo had been immersed in the study of the YBh, the FDJL, and all the other new Yogācāra works being translated by Xuanzang, which is obvious in his extensive citation of these texts in his explication of the hindrances. Since the AMF is concerned, more than anything else, with issues related to the origins and removal of affliction and nescience in the effort of attaining enlightenment, it is not surprising that the two hindrances make their appearance within it. But the definition that the author of the AMF attaches to the hindrances constitutes a radical departure from the generic Yogācāra system that was introduced above—and that, in fact, has no true precedent in the Tathāgatagarbha texts either. The passage in the AMF that introduces the hindrances states:

Furthermore, the aspect of defiled mind is called the afflictive obstruction, because it is able to obstruct the intrinsic intelligence that cognizes thusness. The aspect of nescience is called the cognitive obstruction, as it is able to obstruct conventional spontaneously karmic cognition. (T 1666.32.577c20–22)

The phrase that says “the aspect of the defiled mind is called the afflictive obstruction” is not problematic in the context of the generic Yogâcāra or first-tier interpretation of Huiyuan. But in the next part of the passage, the afflictive obstructions, rather than being presented in the standard manner as obstructing liberation, are said to obstruct the intrinsic intelligence that cognizes thusness— nothing less than the most fundamental manifestation of enlightened awareness. This kind of obstruction, in the context of the canonical Weishi texts, would clearly be seen as cognitive in character. Furthermore, the first part of this phrase, while not seeming problematic at first glance, does present difficulties in terms of the way it is further explained in the AMF. Rather than being constituted by the six primary and twenty derivative afflictions, with the reification of a self at their head, or in terms of the four/five entrenchments, the afflictive obstructions are identified as the six kinds of defiled mental states—the first six movements of mind away from the pure condition of thusness. This description of a sequential degradation of the pristine mind has connotations unique (at least up to that point in time) to the AMF, and cannot readily be correlated to the way that the afflictive hindrances are described in any other text.

In the second sentence, we find the cognitive obstructions defined as “nescience.” This would not in and of itself be problematic, except for the fact that the nescience being introduced here does not obstruct the fundamental apprehension of tathatā. Instead, it obscures the functioning of the karmic, phenomenal, discriminating wisdom that one uses for everyday worldly activities. While this impediment does fall under the purview of cognitive functioning and thus no doubt belongs in this category, it would seem to be, at least on the basis of the brief description provided here, a relatively secondary problem. This means that the structure of the relationship between the two kinds of hindrances in the AMF is quite different from the clearly defined roots-and-branches structure that is apparent in the original Yogâcāra model, as well as from the first-tier interpretation of four and five entrenchments of the Śrīmālā-sūtra.

In fact, it even seems as if the positions on these two approaches to the hindrances are actually reversed in terms of fundamental and derivative, since the AMF’s afflictive obstructions obscure the cognition of tathatā, and the cognitive obstructions impede a relatively external phenomena-oriented form of awareness. The author of the AMF—apparently aware of the differences between his account of the hindrances and the more standard versions—was moved to clarify:

What does this mean? Since, depending upon the defiled mind, one is able to see, manifest, and deludedly grasp objects, one’s mental function is contrary to the equal nature of thusness. Taking all dharmas to be eternally quiescent and devoid of the characteristics of arising, nonenlightenment manifests nescience and thus one deludedly misapprehends dharmas. Thus one has no access to the cognition of particular phenomena that is applied to all objects of the container world. (T 1666.32.577c23–25)

Beyond this problem of the relative depth of the awareness being obstructed, there is also the difference to be seen in the fact that the afflictive obstructions in the AMF are described as being basically cognitive in character. There is no mention of the traditional six primary or twenty derivative afflictions, nor even the traditionally-named origin of these—the reification of the views of “I” and “mine,” etc. Instead, the afflictive hindrances are seen as residing in an inability to perceive the fundamental equality of things. According to the teaching of the AMF, this results in the first movement of the mind, and that movement leads to a series of attachments, and eventually, every form of discomfort.

The AMF’s cognitive obstructions, on the other hand, arise from the error of seeing only unity/equality, which makes one unable to function in the world. We can interpret a bit here and say that while both kinds of obstructions can be seen as being extremely subtle in their function, the cognitive obstructions would more likely be seen in their activity in the minds of those who have already had some experience with correct awareness. Thus they affect advanced practitioners who need to be active in the world—bodhisattvas. We can also observe that the afflictive obstructions would have their primary effect on the person practicing calm abiding meditation (śamatha), whereas the cognitive obstructions would thwart the meditator doing contemplative analysis (vipaśyanā).

Thus, what the reader is going to see in the translation below, is exactly how Wonhyo end up handling these complications, as the Ijang ui was indeed the result of his researches to this end. In his earlier commentary, Expository Notes (Byeolgi), Wonhyo writes a brief note indicating that there is a problem, and that the reader needs to be aware that there is more than one system of the hindrances. Then, during the interim before his next, most famous commentary on the AMF, he conducts an exhaustive inquiry into the matter, obviously reading Huiyuan’s commentary, along with the texts cited therein, as well as the main texts of the Weishi tradition, to develop a full understanding of the issues. His investigation also extends beyond these two basic sets of texts to a broad range of Mahāyāna works, investigating the basic Mahāyāna approaches to delusion and its riddance in general. Then, sometime after the completion of that project, he returns to the AMF to write one more commentary, the one that would end up establishing him as one of the premier scholars in all of East Asian Buddhist history.

Wonhyo’s investigation of the hindrances is nothing but a tour de force, covering their meanings, their composition, their effects, their removal, from every conceivable angle, taking into account all the detailed nuances and difference between textual families, as well as between the theories of various masters ostensively representing the same traditions. His major broad contribution, is the distinguishing of hindrances discourse into two general streams which we can label, generally speaking as Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha. The Yogâcāra system is taken as the “explicit” (K. hyeollyo) and the Tathāgatagarbha system is labeled as “inexplicit” (K. eunmil) The main discussions of the hindrances in the Ijang ui will be broken down according to these two main categories. At the same time, Wonhyo will provide an explanation of these systems internally that is far more thorough than anything ever written by a scholar identified with either tradition.

1.3. The Legacy of the Hindrances in East Asia

In East Asia, it seems as if the Tathāgatagarbha approach to the hindrances predominated at first, based on the influence of the works of Paramârtha, Huiyuan, and their colleagues (along with Tathāgatagarbha-influenced views of Yogâcāra categories), with the competing Yogâcāra explanation only taking hold after the publication of Xuanzang’s translations of the FDJL and the CWSL. In discussions of the hindrances in East Asia subsequent to the demise of the Chinese Weishi School, Buddhist commentators and essayists in China and Korea tend to present the hindrances in a way that shows a lack of awareness of the distinction between the two systems. On the other hand, within the Hossō school in Japan, which maintained a distinct Faxiang doctrinal identity, the Xuanzang/Kuiji view of the hindrances becomes the standard model, no doubt based on the powerful influence of the CWSL and Japanese derivative texts such as the Kanjin kakumu shō.

We do not see, in the subsequent Buddhist scholarship of any cultural tradition, a treatment of the hindrances comparable in thoroughness or magnitude to that by Wonhyo. As mentioned earlier, the hindrances do resurface in the East Asian apocryphon, the Yuanjue jing (Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, T 842 [SPE]) in its fifth chapter, that of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. 26 The usage of the hindrances in that scripture makes for an interesting study, as it is apparent from the content of the discussion that the author of that text was aware of the connotations of the hindrances in both their original Yogâcāra (“explicit”) meaning, as well as that of the “inexplicit” Awakening of Faith. In constructing a new set of hindrances, the author borrows a bit from both perspectives, at the same time incorporating new elements derived from nascent indigenous East Asian Buddhist teachings, including both Huayan and Chan. The Huayan influence is seen the SPE’s framing of the hindrances within the i-sa (Ch. li-shi; principle-phenomena) structure. The Chan influence is seen in the inclusion of the perspective of sudden enlightenment, and in the practice-oriented reinterpretation of the cognitive hindrances into mistakenly reified “kenshō” 27 experiences.

The Chinese scholiast Zongmi (780–841), in his major commentary on the SPE also devotes a couple of pages to explaining the hindrances there, showing how the hindrances of the SPE are to be correlated with those of Yogâcāra and the AMF. In a relatively brief summary, he distinguishes the hindrances into interpretive categories that are analogous to Wonhyo’s explicit/inexplicit arrangement, but it is not clear from the language he uses whether or not he was familiar with Wonhyo’s work. 28

The only other separate essay on the hindrances that I have come across, is, interestingly enough, also done by a Korean. This is the Sippon gyeongnon yijang cheseol (Analysis of the Constitution of the Two Hindrances through Ten Scriptures and Treatises) by the Joseon monk Choenul (1717–1790). 29 Choenul selects passages from a number of texts, nine of which are Tathāgatagarbha/AMF/Huayan works, with the only Weishi source being the CWSL, and no citations whatsoever from Indian sources. He analyzes the types of hindrances and compares them from four perspectives: (1) The broad perspective, wherein a single hindrance is seen as obstructing many forms of virtue; (2) the specific perspective, wherein each hindrance obstructs a single, specific virtue; (3) the perspective of commensurate relationships, wherein a subtle hindrance obstructs a subtle virtue, and a coarse hindrance obstructs a coarse virtue, and (4) the perspective of disjunctive relationships, wherein the coarse obstructs the subtle and the subtle obstructs the coarse. 30

1.4. Content Analysis

The Ijang ui is structured in six chapters, as follows:

1.4.1. A brief introductory first chapter

Here, the basic definitions are provided for the hindrances.

1.4.2. The Essence of the Hindrances

This chapter gives an analysis of how the various canonical texts explain the hindrances as being constituted, especially in terms of such Yogâcāra categories as retributive moral quality; the degree of permeation of the hindrances throughout the eight consciousnesses; their conditions of manifest activity and latency; their function in the situation of seeds, habit energies, and perfuming; their categorization in terms of Yogâcāra dharma theory, etc. The earlier part of the discussion focuses on the depth to which the afflictions are understood to exist in the various regions of consciousness. Do they reside only as deep as the seventh (manas) consciousness, or can they be found in the eighth (ālayavijñāna) as well? The Yogâcāra masters had divergent views on this issue. In explaining the range of positions, Wonhyo analyzes the various afflictions in terms of the three types of moral qualities of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, with the latter category of indeterminate having the two aspects of defiled and undefiled. The presence of afflictions with these qualities is also determined by the meditative realm in which they are discussed, be it the realms of desire, form, or formlessness.

A similar analysis is repeated with the cognitive hindrances, which are investigated in terms of their retributive moral quality, their presence in various consciousnesses and mental realms, as well as their presence in the characters of two vehicle adherents and bodhisattvas, and at various stages of advancement on both kinds of paths. This section also goes into greater depth on the discussion of perfuming and habit energies. In understanding the cognitive hindrances, we are shown the importance of understanding the various interpretations of the meaning of the notion of “nescience,” in terms of delusion in regard to the real existence of dharmas and self, attachment to linguistic constructs, and so forth.

In clarifying the constitution of the various hindrances, Wonhyo here begins to explain some of the more important categorical distinctions. The first of these is that of latency of the afflictions as contrasted with their manifest activity, with latency in turn being distinguished into the two aspects of seeds and debilitating tendencies (tendencies that while not actively entangling, nonetheless hamper certain mental functions). The cognitive hindrances are distinguished along analogous lines.

The next broad distinction, found in both the afflictive and the cognitive hindrances, is that between the hindrances proper and their habit energies (vasanas). In the end, Wonhyo relegates the habit energies into a separate category of hindrance, because their extreme subtlety makes them by far the most difficult sort of obstruction to eliminate. The final set of categories that Wonhyo uses to identify the hindrances is that of the five Yogâcāra categories of dharmas of: (1) mind; (2) mental factors; (3) form; (4) dharmas not directly associated with mind, and (5) unconditioned dharmas. While the hindrances, properly speaking, are normally seen as being included in the second category, they can, by extension, be seen as affecting all of the other categories of dharmas except for the unconditioned. Wonhyo concludes this section by placing the above-mentioned categories of latent/active, actual/impressions, and the various capacities of sentient beings in the framework of this final classification of the five categories of dharmas. Having finished this explanation, Wonhyo introduces an entirely new interpretive approach to the hindrances, which he calls the “inexplicit” approach, the origins of which we have explained above.

1.4.3. The Function of the Hindrances

In this chapter Wonhyo analyzes in painstaking detail the kinds of power the hindrances have to keep sentient beings enmeshed in nescience and cyclic existence (saṃsāra). Now framing each discussion with a clear distinction between the explicit and inexplicit explanations, the greater portion of this chapter treats the afflictive hindrances in their explicit aspect. It is, after all, the predominating role of the afflictions to keep sentient beings bound in cyclic existence. In this context, Wonhyo separates the functions of the afflictions into two main types: the function of producing karma and the function of bringing rebirth. The function of producing karma is again twofold, with the first aspect being the function of producing directive karma (karma which, based on nescience, determines general traits, such as one’s species) and the second is the function of producing particularizing karma (karma which, based on attraction/aversion, determines the precise conditions of one’s rebirth). These are analyzed through the various categories of moral quality, latency/activity, their relation to the Four Truths, the location of their activity in the five sense consciousnesses, the sixth, seventh and eighth consciousnesses, etc. The function of bringing rebirth is also discussed through these categories, with special attention to the role of the attachment to a reified self.

The cognitive hindrances do not function deludedly in regard to the Four Noble Truths or to selflessness of persons, and thus do not produce karma or rebirth. But they have subtler functions, such as those of discrimination of self-nature/dharmas along with discrimination of distinctions of self and other, the disagreeable and agreeable, etc. They are also directly involved with the problems incurred by perfuming from linguistic events. With the main portion of this explanation finished, a brief section is added, once again explaining the production of karma and rebirth from the perspective of habituation, and the role of the entrenchment of nescience and attraction/aversion taught in the Śrīmālā-sūtra.

1.4.4. The Categories of the Hindrances

This section provides a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the various types of arrangements of the hindrances. The first three groupings, those of the 128, 104, and ninety-eight afflictions, represent three different interpretations that are derived from the same basic Yogâcāra model. These first three large-number groups are found in Yogâcāra texts such as the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, Abhidharma-samuccaya, 31 Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, 32 etc., and thus are typical of the evident perspective. All three schemes are derived from interpretations of the ten afflictions 33 seen in terms of their ability to continue to function in the various contexts of the Four Truths and three realms of existence. Thus, the totals of 128, 104, etc., are arrived at depending on how these ten afflictions are seen to linger, depending on various circumstances.

The next three groupings are more complex. These are (1) the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization, (2) the three kinds of hindrances, and (3) the two categories of arisen and entrenched (i.e., the inexplicit perspective). Whereas the three arrangements introduced in the paragraph above deal exclusively with the afflictive hindrances, the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization deal with eight stages of coarsening delusion, starting with the mistaken perception of intrinsic natures, leading to the discrimination of “I” and “mine,” and ending up in the discrimination of the appealing and unappealing. The first three of the eight are seen as cognitive hindrances, while the remaining five are categorized as afflictive hindrances.

The next categorization of the hindrances into three groups is done according to the level of practice, or “path” in which they are removed. There are hindrances eliminated in the Path of Seeing, hindrances eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, and hindrances that are not eliminated in either path. This analysis is further placed in the perspective of the distinctions between what occurs in the practices of the adherents of the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas. These are further sifted through the perspective of the layer of consciousness in which they are contained, as well as whether they are latent or active, and whether they are afflictions proper, or habit energies.

The last section of this chapter, entitled “The Two Categories of Affliction” is a detailed inquiry into the connotations of the entrenched and arisen hindrances taught in the Śrīmālā-sūtra and the Benye jing, and it is here that we can see Wonhyo’s reliance on Huiyuan. Thus, it is an interpretation from the inexplicit perspective. Wonhyo explains the two general categories of the entrenchments: (1) nescience and (2) afflictive emotions toward phenomena in the three realms. These entrenchments are examined from their aspect as four distinct types, and then from the aspect of what they generally have in common. A major point of this section is the clarification of the meaning of intrinsic nescience and its unmatched subtlety that gives it its power to bring about delusion.

1.4.5. Counteracting and Eliminating the Hindrances

The main organizing structure for this section is that of the five Yogâcāra paths, and this turns out to be one of the most complete accounts of Yogâcāra path theory available anywhere. While all five paths are discussed, the primary focus is placed on what exactly occurs within the two important supramundane paths of seeing and cultivation. Tied into this discussion are the matters of virulence and subtlety of afflictions, how the paths are actually applied in the circumstances of the two Lesser Vehicles and bodhisattva vehicles, and so on. Combined into this analysis of Yogâcāra five-path theory are the four realizations of the path of śrāvakas, as well as the forty-one stage bodhisattva path. Once again, the matter of the extent of penetration of the various types of hindrances into the layers of consciousness is seminal in this discussion, as well as the timing involved in the counteracting of the hindrances. All of this is done from the perspective of the various degrees of release from the grip of the hindrances, defined by the distinction between “quelling,” which means to subjugate the negative effects of the hindrances, but not to be totally rid of them, and “elimination,” which refers to their permanent annihilation.

1.4.6. Resolution of Discrepancies

This final chapter treats problematic issues, especially those concerned with trying to correlate the path schema adhered to by different texts and traditions. Wonhyo works through a long list of questions such as: Do all those who completely and permanently eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm attain the realization of the nonreturner? Do all those who attain the realization of the nonreturner completely and permanently eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm? Do all those who are permanently free from the desire of the form realm definitely enter into the formless concentrations? And do all those who enter into the formless liberating concentrations free themselves from the desire of the form realm? Beyond the three realms, are there sentient beings or not? How should śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who have reached the stage of no-more-learning be evaluated in terms of the stages of the Mahāyāna path? And so on.

Included within these questions are unresolved issues regarding the complicated position of the manas in the various forms of path theory, as well as problems related to the correlation of the explicit and inexplicit approaches to the hindrances. It is in this section where Wonhyo most fully demonstrates his extraordinary abhorrence of loose ends. In the end, as can be seen in many of his other works, Wonhyo concludes that the full understanding of the matter is beyond the ordinary consciousness of sentient beings, and can only be fathomed by enlightened beings.

1.5. Textual History and Notes on the Translation

The primary source for this translation is the edition of the Ijang ui contained in Volume One of the Han-guk bulgyo jeonseo (HBJ). It should be noted, however, that although the text has been transmitted in the modern era with the title Ijang ui (“System,”, “Meaning,” or “Doctrine” of the Two Hindrances), in his own works (such as his later commentary on the AMF and his commentary on the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra), Wonhyo refers to the text with the title Yijang jang (“Essay on the Two Hindrances”), and that is the way it is listed in later Faxiang and Huayan catalogues. 34 The most extensive real citation and usage of the text that can be identified within the Taishō are found in the commentaries on the Huayan wujiao zhang by the Japanese Kegon monks Gyōnen (1240–1321) and Shinjō (13–14c)—T 2339 and T 2340. In both of these works, the title is given as Ijang ui. Presumably, this is the version of the text that ended up in the Ōtani collection, which received the invaluable editorial treatment from Ōchō Enichi.

In Korean works collected in the HBJ, I have not come across any mention of the Ijang ui in the writings of the Goryeo or Joseon period. Even Choenul’s essay on the two hindrances noted above makes no mention whatsoever of the text. There is one hint of possible awareness of the Ijang ui in Choenul’s usage of the hermeneutical strategy of analyzing the hindrances in terms of “the positive function being obstructed,” as this phrase does appear in the Ijang ui (1.790a9). But there is no other real correspondence between the two works that can be made beyond this, and there is almost no correlation that can be made between the source texts that Choenul uses and those used in the Ijang ui, leaving us to conclude that there is little evidence of Choenul’s knowledge of Wonhyo’s text.

The HBJ version of the text has such an extremely high frequency of errors that it is virtually unreadable as is. Thus, like other modern students of the text, I have relied extensively on the version of the Ōtani text edited by Ōchō Enichi, and the edition contained in the Wonhyo seongsa jeonseo (WSC), both of which are significantly improved, allowing the reader to gain a foothold on the text. But even the editors of these versions were understandably unable to track down the large number of citations Wonhyo made from the YBh and fifty other texts—and they also misidentified a number of textual references. Therefore, I was fortunate in having been able to study this text at a time when digital versions of the canon had become available, and thus I was able to identify and correct a large number of previously unreported errors, and obtain the contexts for many abbreviated citations. I was also able to work with an array of digitized lexical tools that allowed me to identify probable Sanskrit originals of translated Chinese compound words, as well as probable Tibetan equivalents, which enabled me to bring a degree of precision to the translation that would have been impossible otherwise. It is clear that the tools available in the digital age are going to be a big help when it comes to this kind of work.

Unfortunately, due to printing costs, we were not able to include Chinese in the main text of this edition. This decision turns out to be especially problematic in the case of the Ijang ui, in view of the unusually high number of errors in the text, as well as disagreements in cited passages between what is provided in the Ijang ui and what appears in source texts in our possession, such as the YBh. The sheer number of these problematic errors, along with the difficulties to be seen in attempting to effectively discuss them through Sino-Korean romanization led me to the conclusion that it would not be worthwhile to annotate all of these numerous points in the present study, given the fact that a critical edition can be easily placed on the Web. I have therefore placed a revised and heavily annotated edition of the source text on my web site at for those who wish to study the text along with its Sino-Korean source. In the event of the future relocation of the web site, please search for the keywords “Ijang ui,” “Ijang ŭi,” or “two hindrances.” Also, during the course of the translation, virtually every term was added to the online Digital Dictionary of Buddhism ( and can thus be checked using the online source text that I have prepared.

2. Translation

2.1. Prologue and Definition of Terminology

2.1.1. Prologue

[HBJ 1.789c4, WSC 321]

二障義六門分別。一釋名義、二出體相、 三辨功能、四攝諸門、五明治斷、六惣決擇。

[789c] The system of the two hindrances will be explained in six sections: (1) The definition of their terminology; (2) the presentation of their content and characteristics; (3) an explication of their functions; (4) a summary of their various categories; (5) a clarification of the processes of their subjugation and elimination; (6) the resolution of discrepancies.

2.1.2. Definition of Terminology

[HBJ 1.789c8, WSC 325]

第一釋名。言二障者、一煩惱障、亦名惑障。 二所知障、亦名智障。或有異門、名煩惱碍及與智碍。煩惱障者、貪瞋等惑煩勞爲性。

The two hindrances are (1) the afflictive hindrances—also called the mentally disturbing 35 hindrances, and (2) the “cognitive hindrances” (K. soji jang)—also written with the Sino(-Korean) term chijang. 36 There is also another interpretation of the hindrances in which they are termed the afflictive obstructions (K. beonnoe ae) and cognitive obstructions (K. ji ae) 37 The afflictive hindrances refers to mental disturbances such as craving, anger and so forth, which have pain and suffering as their nature.

[HBJ 1.789c11, WSC 326]

適起現行煩亂身心、故名煩惱 。此當體從功能立名。又復能惑界內。煩惱之報逼惱有情、令離寂靜。故名煩惱。是爲因中説果名也。

They manifest themselves according to the circumstance and afflict the body and mind—therefore they are called afflictions. In this case the subject derives its name from its function. These hindrances furthermore function to disturb those still in the world of cyclic existence. 38 The effects of affliction vex sentient beings, causing them to lose their tranquility. Therefore they are called afflictions. This approach explains the name of the effect from the perspective of cause.

[HBJ 1.789c13, WSC 326]


Hindrance (āvaraṇa) has the meaning of impeding, and also has the function of obscuration. The afflictions impede sentient beings from escaping from cyclic existence. They obscure the intrinsic nature so that it cannot manifest nirvāṇa. It is with these two connotations in mind that they are called [afflictive] hindrances. They are named based on their meaning and function.

[HBJ 1.789c17, WSC 326]


What are the cognitive hindrances? Because the nature of the exhaustive number of separate things and the nature of the thusness of things 39 are illumined [respectively] by the two kinds of cognition, 40 they are called “the knowables.” The mental disturbances of attachment to dharmas 41 and so forth obstruct the nature of cognition so that it cannot carry out clear observation. They obscure the nature of the objects such that one cannot clearly observe the mind. Due to these connotations, they are called the cognitive hindrances. [These hindrances] derive their name from that which is obscured, as well as their function. 42

[HBJ 1.789c21, WSC 328]

然、人執等惑亦有障於少分境智。而未遮於無上菩提、亦不弊於一切種境。雖已斷此、不得彼故、是故不立所知障名。法執等惑亦有少分感 [HBJ offers the alternative of . However, based on the parallel structure with the sentence above, but seems right.]生死義、而不弊於二乘涅槃、亦不止於分段生死。雖不斷此而證理 [WSC has instead of .]故、是故不受煩惱障名。擧奪之意義在此乎。惑智之名如常所説。 [HBJ offers the alternative of here.]

However, the mental disturbances such as attachment to person also partially obstruct objects and cognition. Yet they do not impede peerless bodhi and do not obscure every single kind of object. 43 And even if one eliminates one [the obstruction of peerless bodhi], one will not necessarily attain the other [clear apprehension of all objects]; therefore they are not defined as cognitive hindrances. Mental disturbances such as attachment to dharmas are also partially responsible for bringing about cyclic existence. 44 Yet they do not obstruct the attainment of nirvāṇa by the adherents of the two vehicles and do not keep people in delimited cyclic existence. Even though one has not severed this [cyclic existence], one may still realize the principle. 45 Therefore they are not called afflictive hindrances. Indeed, the practice of offering a proposition and then immediately refuting it can be seen here. 46 The terms “afflictions” and “cognition” can be understood according to their common usage.

[HBJ 1.790a5, WSC 331]


[790a] They have also been referred to as the afflictive and cognitive “obstructions” (ae 礙) 47 When the six kinds of defiled mind 48 give rise to thoughts and attach to characteristics, they act counter to the nature of equality, which is free from characteristics and motionless. Because they upset one’s serenity they are called the “afflictive obstructions (beonnoe ae).” Fundamental nescience (geunbon mumyeong) directly obscures the unobtainable nature of all dharmas, and there is nowhere that it does not obstruct conventional cognition. Due to the fact that they bring about incomplete comprehension they are called “obstructions to cognition.” In this interpretation, “affliction” is named as an error that acts to obstruct. Cognition is named as the positive [function] that is being obstructed. The meaning of denying and affirming can be understood the same way as in the prior passage. 49

2.2. The Essence of the Hindrances

[HBJ 1.790a12, WSC 333]


There are two basic approaches to the explanation of the substance of the hindrances: the explicit approach and the inexplicit approach. 50

2.2.1. The Explicit Approach

The explicit approach to the hindrances is explained from five perspectives: (1) showing their content and characteristics from the point of view of their basic nature; (2) examining their essence from the perspective of the eight consciousnesses and the three [karmic moral] qualities; (3) discerning their essence from the perspectives of manifest activity and latency; (4) clarifying their essence from the perspective of the afflictions proper and their habit energies; 51 (5) determining their essence from the point of view of the five [categories] of dharmas. 52 Showing the Essence of the Hindrances from the Point of View of their Nature

[HBJ 1.790a16, WSC 335]


Led by the attachment to person, the [six] primary afflictions 53 and the derivative afflictions, such as anger, resentment, concealing and so forth constitute the nature of the afflictive hindrances. 54 If we take into account the other phenomena that are associated with these afflictions, including concomitant factors, the acts they produce, as well as the retribution that is experienced, all help to constitute the essence of the afflictive hindrances.

The cognitive hindrances, led by attachment to dharmas, have as their essence delusive discrimination, along with the attachment to teachings, pride, nescience, and so forth. They are buttressed by concomitant [mental] functions and the marks that they grasp to, which also conjoin to form their essence. 55 Examining the Essence of the Hindrances from the Perspective of the Eight Consciousnesses and the Three [Karmic Moral] Qualities

[HBJ 1.790a23, WSC 337]

二依八識三性簡體者。煩惱障體不與阿賴識相應、唯其七種轉識倶起。於中愛與無明通七種識。慢通二識。瞋唯不通第七末那。疑及四見唯在意識。薩迦耶見在意、意識。薩迦耶中有二行、所謂我行及我所行。 The Afflictive Hindrances Within the Eight Consciousnesses

The afflictive hindrances are in essence not associated with the ālayavijñāna 56 —they arise only in conjunction with the seven forthcoming consciousnesses. 57 Among these, attraction and nescience permeate all seven of these consciousnesses. Pride functions in the two consciousnesses [manovijñāna (thinking consciousness) and manas (self-absorbed consciousness)]. Only anger does not operate in the manas. 58 Doubt and the four views [besides the view of self] reside only in the manovijñāna [i.e., operate at the level of waking consciousness], 59 while the view of self 60 is contained in both the mano and manas 61 consciousnesses [thus operating at both conscious and subconscious levels]. The view of self has two functions: one is [to produce] the view of “I” and the other is [to produce] the view of “mine.”

[HBJ 1.790b4, WSC 337]

如是二行亦通二識。意識二行義在可見。末那相應二行相者、直緣阿賴耶識自體而作我行。兼 [Using following WSC, as opposed to in the HBJ.]緣彼識體上諸相、作我所行。言諸相者、與彼相應五種心法及與一切十八界相。如是諸相皆從彼識種子所起、悉是彼識明鏡所現。是故末那亦得竝緣。

[790b] These two functions of the view of self operate in both [the mano and manas] consciousnesses. The reason why both function within the manovijñāna is obvious. 62 As for the function of these two aspects [of the view of self] in association with the manas, it creates the activity of “I” by directly apprehending the ālayavijñāna as an essence. At the same time, 63 apprehending the various marks on the surface of this essence of consciousness, [the manas] creates the feeling of “mine.” “Various marks” refers to the five categories of [the hundred] dharmas together with all the signs of the eighteen cognitive factors. 64 All of these various marks are produced from the seeds of this [ālaya] consciousness—all appear as the reflections of the clear mirror of this consciousness. Therefore, the manas consciousness also takes these as its object.

[HBJ 1.790b10, WSC 340]

喩如眼識緣明鏡時、亦有種了別相。一者、了別鏡體明色。二亦了別於中影像、而不能計鏡外有像。末那二行其義亦爾、而不能計識外有法。故惣相說還緣彼識。如直說言眼識緣鏡、當知亦緣鏡內現影。影 [WSC eliminates the second here.]是不待言論。此亦如是。直說末那還緣彼識、當知兼 [WSC has instead of .]緣識內現不待言論。故不煩說。

It is like when the visual consciousness apprehends a clear mirror—there are also various aspects of what is perceived. In one mode, the visual consciousness perceives the reflective character of the mirror. In the other mode, it perceives the images reflected in the mirror, and is unable to infer the existence of objects outside the mirror. The situation of the two kinds of perception of self carried out by the manas is like this—the manas cannot imagine that there are phenomena outside the ālayavijñāna. Therefore, generally speaking, the manas perceives that [ālaya] consciousness. It is as when simply saying that the visual consciousness perceives the mirror: one should also understand that the consciousness perceives the images reflected in the mirror. The fact that images are also being perceived does not require a special explanation. When it is merely said that the manas perceives the storehouse consciousness, one should understand without a special explanation that this also includes the perception of what is manifested within that consciousness. Therefore we should not be troubled about its being directly explained.

[HBJ 1.790b18, WSC 342]

顯揚論「意者、謂從阿賴耶識種子所生、還緣彼識、我癡、我愛、我、我所執、我慢相應。」 [T 1602.31.480c16–17]故。其我見中有二種緣。一緣自依止、二緣他依止。末那所起唯有初緣、意識之中具二種緣。緣自我見、有二種起。謂分別起及任運起。末那有後 [HBJ has here.]意識具二。

As the Xianyang lun 65 says: “The manas is said to arise from the seeds in the ālayavijñāna, and then perceiving that consciousness, makes the associations of self-delusion, self-love, ‘I,’ ‘mine,’ and the conceit ‘I am.’ (K. aman; Skt. asmi-māna). 66 Thus, within the view of a self there are two kinds of cognition: the first depends on cognition of self and the second depends on cognition of others. That which is produced by the manas only contains the first kind of cognition, while the manovijñāna includes both kinds of cognition. There are two kinds of activity depending on the self-cognizing view of a self. These are the so-called ‘activity produced by discrimination’ and ‘innately active.’ 67 The manas contains [only] the latter, and the manovijñāna includes both.”

[HBJ 1.790b24, WSC 344]



[T 1579.31.779c10–14]故。諸隨煩惱隨其所應、在七種識。於中委曲准之可解。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi 68 says:

Based on the four kinds of self-view, there is the production of the conceit “I am.” These are: (1) the discriminated self-view, which is said to be entertained by non-Buddhists; (2) the innate self-view, which is said to be produced even by lower beings, such as birds and beasts; (3) the self-dependent self-view, which is produced within each individual; (4) the other-dependent self-view—the view of self that is produced in relation to other persons. (T 1579.31.779c10–14)

All the derivative afflictions abide in the seven kinds of forthcoming consciousness appropriate to [the mental condition]. Based on this explanation this point can be understood in detail. Within the Three [Karmic Moral] Qualities

[HBJ 1.790c7, WSC 345]

論三性者。三性法門乃有多種、今且依一自性門說。色無色界一切煩惱及欲界中末那四惑、皆是有覆無記性攝。五識所起貪恚癡等、是不善性。不善意識之等流故。如瑜伽 「決定心後方有染淨。此後乃有等流。眼識善不善轉、而彼不由自分別力」 [T 1579.30.280a24–25] 「如眼識生乃至身識應知亦爾」 [T 1579.30.280a21]故。欲界意識所起之中、若分別起一切煩惱悉是不善。任運起中身邊二見、是無記性。

What are the three [karmic moral] qualities [in their relation to affliction]? Since there are a number of interpretations, for the time being we will discuss the matter from the perspective of [their possession of] a definitive nature. All the afflictions of the form and formless realms, 69 as well as the four afflictions of the manas in the desire realm 70 are impedimentary, but indeterminate in their moral quality. The greed, hatred, and delusion and so forth that are arisen from the five consciousnesses 71 are all of unwholesome quality. This is because they are effects that are the same in type as the unwholesome states of the manovijñāna. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

It is only subsequent to the mental state of ascertainment 72 that there is defilement and purity, and after this effects of the same type produced. The visual consciousness functions in wholesome and unwholesome states, but this is not due to its own discriminative power. (T 1579.30.280a24–25) [the Yogâcārabhūmi also says, in an earlier passage:] The activity [of all of the consciousnesses] from the visual consciousness to the [other four] sense consciousnesses should be understood as operating according to the same rule. (T 1579.30.280a21)

Therefore, all afflictions produced by discrimination within the manovijñāna when it is operating in the desire realm are unwholesome. The two inherent views of identity and extreme views are of indeterminate karmic quality.

[HBJ 1.790c14, WSC 347]

瑜伽 「復次、倶生薩迦耶見唯無記性。數現行故、非極損惱自他處故。若分別起、由堅執故、與前相違。在欲界者、唯不善性。」 [T 1579.30.622a26–28] 故。愛慢無明能發修斷不善業者、是不善性。結生之時微細現行、是無記性。如對法論 「九種命終心自體愛相應」 [T 1606.714b.27]此愛、唯是有覆無記性故。瞋恚一種唯不善性而亦通善心中起。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

Furthermore, the inherent identity view of the reality of the self is only of indeterminate quality. This is because it repeatedly manifests 73 and does not inflict extreme pain to either oneself or others. Since the identity view that is produced by discrimination is rigidly attached to, it differs from the former. When it functions within the desire realm, it is only of unwholesome quality. (T 1579.30.622a26–28)

Unwholesome activities that are to be eliminated in the Path of Cultivation —which are produced from thirst, pride, and nescience—are of unwholesome quality. Those that are subtly active at the time of birth are of indeterminate quality. As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says: “The nine kinds of near-death mind are intrinsically associated with thirst.” (T 1606.714b.27) This is because this thirst is only of impedimentary indeterminate quality. Hatred is of exclusively unwholesome quality, despite the fact that it can be active in the midst of wholesome mental states.

[HBJ 1.791a1, WSC 349]

瑜伽 「又由自性建立如是黑白倶業。謂如有一隨於一所許作利益、卽由餘事復 [The usage of here follows the Taishō and WSC, instead of as given in the HBJ.] 於其所作不利益。如於暴 [The HBJ offers alternative of here, but the present arrangement agrees with Taishō.] [ Taishō has instead of as given by HBJ. makes more sense, since 暴虐 is a standard compound word.]作惡人所發生瞋恚倶行之思、不喜彼惡。當知此思瞋倶行故、隨黑分中不喜樂。彼惡倶行故、隨白分中。是故此業說名黑白。如是所餘種類亦爾」 [T 1579.30.665a27–665b4]故。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

[Good and evil karmas] are also posited from the standpoint of their own nature, as can be seen in the case of concurrent negative and positive activity. It is like the situation where, in the context of a certain situation, an act might be acknowledged as being beneficial, while the same act in another situation may be seen as harmful. For example, the case where a person in a state of rage commits an evil act and experiences anger, but the thoughts that accompany this anger take no joy in the commission of this evil. It should be understood that this [positive] thought and [negative] anger are concurrent, so therefore, even while acting in conjunction with the negative aspect of the action, there is no joy experienced in the action. But since this evil is concurrent [with the not-taking of joy], it also acts in conjunction with a positive aspect. Therefore, this karmic activity is called [a blend of] negative and positive. The other cases should be understood in the same way. (T 1579.30.665a27–665b4)


Within the derivative afflictions, the four functions of discursive thought, investigation, recognition of wrong actions, and drowsiness function within all three moral qualities. But when they function in wholesome states of mind, they do not necessarily have a derivatively afflictive character. 74 It is like [someone] cultivating the uncontaminated path in the midst of a dream—in this case the mental function of drowsiness does not have an afflictive nature. The other three [indeterminate] mental functions can be understood in the same way.

[HBJ 1.791a12, WSC 350]

放逸等十及誑、謟、憍、唯通不善有覆無記。忿、恨、覆、惱、慳、嫉、與害、無慚、無愧、如是九種、唯不善性。此中無慚、無愧、論其自性、遍行一切不善心中。若說增用、愧通一切、慚未必通。如瑜伽 「無慚、無愧、通與一切不善相應。」 [T 1579.30.604a25–6. Neither the Taishō nor KT have the character here, but WSC includes it.]

The [first] ten [of the derivative afflictions] starting with indolence and including flattery, deceit, and conceit are all of unwholesome quality and impedimentary indeterminate (nivṛta-avyākṛta) quality. The remaining nine [afflictions of] wrath, enmity, hypocrisy, anxiety, parsimony, jealousy, injury, lack of conscience, and shamelessness are of exclusively unwholesome quality. In terms of their nature, lack of conscience and shamelessness permeate all types of unwholesome states of mind. As they expand in their activity, shame[lessness] is active in all [qualitative] states, while [lack of] conscience is not necessarily active. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “lack of conscience and shamelessness are associated with all unwholesome states.” (T 1579.30.604a25–6)

又上文言 「慚現前時、必愧現前。若愧現前不必有慚。例如四無色蘊自性必倶。論其用增次第現前」 [Source not located] 故。亦說言 「從此初心生後三心。」 [T 1595.31.167b2]此二生起道理亦爾。餘隨煩惱生起道理、如論廣說。

As an above passage says: “When conscience manifests, shame cannot but also be present. But the presence of shame does not necessarily imply the presence of conscience. It is like the four formless aggregates, 75 which, although by nature must operate concurrently, from the perspective of their developing function, appear in sequence.” 76 It is said [in the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha-bhāṣya]: “After the arising of this first mental [aggregate] the other three arise.” (T 1595.31.167b2) 77 The principle for the arising of these two [mental states of shame and conscience] is the same as this. The principle for the arising of the remaining derivative afflictions is as explained in detail in the [Yogâcārabhūmi-]śāstra.

[[HBJ 1.791a22, WSC 353]]

彼言 「隨煩惱者 略由四相差別建立。謂無慚無愧 亦 [Taishō has instead of .] 通一切不善心起。放逸、掉擧、惛沒、不信、懈怠、耶欲 [Taishō has 邪欲]、勝解 [Taishō has 邪勝解]、妄念、散亂、不正知。此十通一切染汚心起、通一切當三界所繫。忿、恨、覆、惱、嫉、慳、誑、諂、憍、害、此十各別不善心起。若一生時必無第二。如是十種皆欲界繫、除誑、諂、憍。由誑及諂至初靜慮、憍通三界、此幷前二。若在上地唯無記性。尋、伺、惡作、睡眠、此四通三性心、非一切處、非一切時。若有極久尋求伺察、便令身疲念失心亦勞損是故尋伺名隨煩惱。此二乃至初靜慮地、惡作、睡眠、唯在欲界。」 [T 1579.30.622b23–622c9.]故。煩惱障相略說如是。

[The Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra] says:

The derivative afflictions are generally distinguished in terms of four characteristics [...] 78 This means that lack of conscience and shamelessness arise in concert with all unwholesome states of mind. Indolence, restlessness, torpor, faithlessness, [791b] laziness, sexual desire, [mistaken] resolve, forgetting, distraction, and incorrect knowledge—these ten arise in tandem with all defiled states of mind, and all serve as tethers to the three realms. 79 Each of the [ten derivative afflictions] of anger, enmity, hypocrisy, vexation, jealousy, parsimony, deceit, guile, conceit, and hostility arises separately in unwholesome states of mind. Once one arises, no others arise. Except for deceit, guile and conceit, these ten are all limited in their function to the desire realm.

Since deceit and guile persist up to the level of the first meditation, 80 and conceit is experienced in all three realms, it is put together with the prior two. When it appears at more advanced stages of practice, it is only of indeterminate quality. Discursive thought, investigation, remorse, and drowsiness—these four operate in all three moral modes of mentation, but not in all places, and not at all times. If discursive thought and investigation are carried out for an extremely long time, they cause physical exhaustion, loss of mindfulness, and mental fatigue, and thus discursive thought and investigation can be called derivative afflictions. These two [also] function up to the level of the first meditation. Remorse and drowsiness exist only in the desire realm. (T 1589.30.622b23–622c9)

This summarizes the characteristics of the afflictive hindrances. The Cognitive Hindrances In the Eight Consciousnesses

[HBJ 1.791b12, WSC 357]

所知障體其相云何。或有說者、法執無明唯在第六、第七二識、不通餘識。推求性故、法愛恚等非見所攝。不推求者亦通五識。如攝論 「能遍計心唯意識」 [ T 1594.31.139b12, paraphrase.]故。一切不通阿賴耶識。如瑜伽說。 「阿賴耶識無有 [Here we change 不與 as found in the HBJ to 無有 as seen in Taishō and KT.]煩惱、而共相應。」 [T 1579.30.651c15.]故。

What are the characteristics of the content of the cognitive hindrances? Some say that the nescience of attachment to dharmas exists only in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, and does not operate in the other consciousnesses. 81 Strictly speaking, attachment to dharma, malice, and so forth are not included in the category of views (dṛṣṭi). 82 But if we interpret in a looser sense, then they can also be said to operate in the five [sense] consciousnesses. As the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha says: “Subjective pervasive fabrication (K. byeongye; Skt. parikalpita) is done only by the thinking consciousness (manovijñāna).” 83 None whatsoever occurs in the ālayavijñāna. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “The ālayavijñāna does not contain afflictions, even if it is associated with them.” (T 1579.30.651c15)

[HBJ 1.791b18, WSC 358]

「若此識中有法執者、成法我見。有無明等不應唯與五法相應。[...] 又、若此識有法執者、無所薰故、應念念失。不須對治卽成太過。又、法空觀初現前時、此識應斷。障治相違、不倶行故。若爾、所餘有漏種子應無所依、所修功德應無熏習。無所薰故、亦不可言熏習。鏡智非無記故、猶未得故、故知法執不通此識。」 (T 1530.26.323b24–c3)

If there were attachment to dharmas within this [ālaya] consciousness, it would construct views of the inherent existence of dharmas. If this were the case, then the existence of nescience and so forth would not be limited in its association to only the five consciousnesses. “Furthermore, if this consciousness had attachment to dharmas, it could not undergo perfuming, and therefore would disappear in every moment. If one did not employ corrective practices, one would go greatly astray. Furthermore, at the time prior to the initial insight into the selflessness of dharmas, this [ālaya] consciousness would be cut off. This is because the [activity of the] hindrances and their correction conflict with each other and hence cannot function concurrently. If this were the case, the remaining contaminated seeds 84 would have no support, and the merit that is cultivated would not perfume anything. With nothing to perfume, one cannot even speak of ‘perfuming.’ 85 Since the mirror-cognition 86 is not of indeterminate moral quality, 87 and it has not yet been attained, we know that attachment to dharmas does not occur in this [ālaya] consciousness. ” 88

[HBJ 1.791b21, WSC 359]

於三 [HBJ’s is changed to according to the context of the discussion.]性中。唯在不善、有覆無記。

Among the three qualities, [attachment to dharmas] is only of unwholesome and impedimentary indeterminate quality. 89

[HBJ 1.791c2, WSC 359]


[791c] Even though [this attachment to dharmas] does not contaminate the holy paths of the two vehicles, 90 it does defile and obstruct the path of the bodhisattvas. Because of this, it is said to be both impedimentary and nonimpedimentary. Since its essence is characterized in two ways according to the situation, this attachment does not [necessarily] extend its influence into the four kinds of exclusively nonimpedimentary morally indeterminate mental states. 91 This is because: (1) the results of ripening 92 that appear within the forthcoming consciousnesses have the same nature as the differentially ripening consciousness itself (i.e., the ālayavijñāna); (2) their power of discrimination is weak and unable to attach; (3) the mental states of deportment and so forth do not adhere firmly; (4) their attachment does not function everywhere. Furthermore, [attachment to dharmas] does not pervade all wholesome mental states. This is because [these states] act in opposition to the nature of nescience and so forth, and because these [wholesome mental states] must act concurrently with the wholesome root 93 of no-folly.

[HBJ 1.791c10, WSC 362]

瑜伽說。 「無明有二。一者不善、二者無記。又有二種。一有染汚、二不染汚。不言有善。 」 [This passage is not contained in the YBh, but can be found in the Fodijing lun at T 1530.26.323b13–14.] 故。設使法空觀前方便道中有法執者、卽應人空觀前方便道中亦起人執。而於此中旣無此事、故知於彼亦無法執也。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says: “There are two kinds of nescience: the first is unwholesome and the second is of indeterminate quality. There are also two further kinds: the first is defiled and the second is undefiled. Nescience cannot be said to be ‘wholesome.’” 94 If you say that during the Path of Skillful Means prior to the contemplation of the selflessness of dharmas, 95 there is attachment to dharmas, then during the Path of Skillful Means prior to contemplation of the selflessness of person 96 there should also be attachment to person. Yet since the latter is not the case, we know that in the former situation there is also no attachment to dharmas.

[HBJ 1.791c15, WSC 362]

或有說者、法執分別遍通八識。未達法空故、取相分別故。如深蜜經言。 「微細隨眠者、謂八地已上從此以去。一切煩惱不復現行。唯有所知障爲依止。」 [T 676.16.707c17–18.]故。此明八地已上唯所知障現行。不可說此轉識所起。不與隨眠作依止故。當知是說阿賴耶識微細所知障現行不絕。

Some maintain that discrimination and attachment to dharmas function throughout the eight consciousnesses. This is because when one has not realized the selflessness of dharmas, one adheres to discriminated characteristics. As the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: “From the eighth [bodhisattva] ground up, the extremely subtle latent afflictions are removed. After this, none of the afflictions will ever again be active. From here only the cognitive hindrances exist to serve as the basis [for mental disturbance].” (T 676.16.707c17–18) This shows that beyond the eighth [bodhisattva] ground only the cognitive hindrances are active, and one cannot say that the hindrances are produced by the forthcoming consciousnesses, since they do not serve as a basis for the latent afflictions. One should understand that this means that the extremely subtle cognitive hindrances in the ālayavijñāna continue their activity unabated.

[HBJ 1.791c22, WSC 364]

中邊論說。 「塵、根、我、及識、本識生似彼。亂 [T and KT have instead of , but may have been deliberately placed here by Wonhyo as an interpretation based on the explanation that follows this verse.]識有無彼。彼無故識無。亂識有者、但亂識有。無彼者、謂無四物。」 卽下文言。 「此亂識云何名虛妄。由境不實故、由體散亂故。」 [From T 1599.31.451b22–23.]

Furthermore, the Madhyânta-vibhāga 97 says:

Objects, faculties, self, and [the six kinds of manifest] consciousness

The root consciousness 98 arises appearing like these.

When this delusive consciousness exists, those [four] do not exist;

If they do not exist, neither does consciousness. 99

“Delusive consciousness exists,” means that it is only the delusive consciousness that exists. “Those do not exist” means that those four things do not exist. 100

[The meaning of the nonexistence of these four] is explained as follows: “Why is this delusive consciousness said to be false? Because its objects are not real, and because its essence is dispersed [among the objects, faculties, etc.].” (T 1599.31.451b22–23)

[HBJ 1.792a3, WSC 364]]

然此識中、想數爲首。取相分別、卽不了達無相眞如。故名法執、亦名無明。非推求性、計度實有故、無惠等餘心數法。又、此妄想最極微細、唯與大圓鏡智相違。是故不妨諸轉識智。由是義故、亦能受薰。是無記故、非極香臭之所記故。如人衣等。仙卽覺臭、而亦能受香臭所薰。非極臭故。此識亦爾。如攝論言。 「無記者、是不可記極香臭義。」 [T 1597.31.329c17–18]故。

[792a] The principal activity of this [delusive] consciousness is conceptualization. It discriminates and adheres to marks, not comprehending markless thusness. Hence it is called attachment to dharmas; it is also called nescience. Failing to fully investigate their nature, one imagines [those marks] to really exist, and based on this, there appear mental factors such as delusion. Furthermore, this delusive conceptualization is so extremely subtle in its function, that it [can be known only as delusion] when it is contrasted with the mirrorlike cognition. Therefore [this kind of subtle discrimination] does not obstruct the cognition of the forthcoming consciousnesses. This being the case, it can also be perfumed. This is because it is of indeterminate moral quality, and because it is not marked by its own distinctive powerful “odor.” Take, for example, the case of a person’s clothes or the like. A [Daoist] immortal would smell the odor, and he could also be perfumed by an odor, because [his own] smell is not extremely powerful. It is the same with this consciousness. As the [Commentary on the] Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha says: “‘Indeterminate quality’ means that it cannot be identified by [its own] powerful odor.” 101

[HBJ 1.792a12, WSC 366]


Furthermore, even if this consciousness does not undergo perfuming, before and after continuously produce each other, and without undergoing correction, it will never be cut off. Since there is neither interruption nor cessation, how can it be perfumed? That which does not receive habituation will disappear. If the seeds 102 are not [re-]perfumed, they should be disappearing in every thought-moment. Yet these seeds, even though not being habituated, have continuity between before and after without break or interruption. So even though there is cessation at each thought-moment, there is not loss at each thought-moment. Attachment by this consciousness to dharmas should be understood in the same way. Based on this principle, there is no error. However, since there are no afflictive hindrances in this situation, it is said that it is not concomitant with the afflictions. It is not said that it is not concomitant with the cognitive hindrances. Therefore this passage is also not contradictory.

[HBJ 1.792a20, WSC 367]

阿賴耶識尚有妄想、何況五識而無法執。如涅槃經言。 「如是五識雖非一念、然是有漏。復是顚倒增諸漏、故名爲有漏。體非眞實着相故倒。」 [T 374.12.587a12–14.]

If even the ālayavijñāna is subject to deluded conceptualization, how could the five [sense] consciousnesses be completely free from attachment to dharmas? As the Nirvana Sutra says:

Even though these five consciousnesses do not generate a single thought, they are still contaminated. 103 Because distorted perception stimulates their contaminating activity, they are said to be contaminated. Since their essences are not real and they are attached to marks, the [five consciousnesses] perceive mistakenly. (T 374.12.587a12–14)


From this we know that the five consciousnesses also have distorted attachment. Yet these five consciousnesses only attach to the five objects. They are not able to engage in fabricating everything (parikalpanā), and they do not attach to language. Therefore [the activity of] fabricating everything is said to be limited to the manovijñāna. [792b] If, based on these passages, one affirms that the five consciousnesses lack attachment to dharmas, then it would follow that the manas also lacks attachment to dharmas. Therefore we can confirm that this text does not corroborate [the position taken by the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra]. The Three Qualities

[HBJ 1.792b4, WSC 370]

又、所知障亦通三性、乃至二乘人空無漏、亦未能免法執分別。所以者何。如彼見道、雖離一切方便道中意言分別。於苦等諦離諸名言。超過影像、現量智生 [T 1579.427c.12 says 超過影像即於所知事、有無分別現量。智見生入初靜慮者。]。由是證入人空眞如。

The cognitive hindrances also operate in all three moral qualities, up to the level of uncontaminated selflessness of person realized by the adherents of the two vehicles, who have still not succeeded in freeing themselves from discriminated attachment to dharmas. Why so? In their Path of Seeing, 104 [the adherents of the two vehicles] are freed from all the mental chatter (mano-jalpa) that was present in the Path of Skillful Means. 105 They are free from all linguistic apparatus associated with the truths of suffering and so forth; they transcend all projected images and experience direct perception. Therefore they realize the thusness of selflessness of person.


Yet at this point, even though they do not grasp to names, when they experience suffering and so forth, they still grasp to its marks. [Captivated by] this extreme [of attainment of insight into selflessness of person], but not yet attaining the thusness of the selflessness of dharmas, they become confused in regard to the nature of the virtues of the dharma, self, permanence, and bliss. 106 It is like the case of the five sense consciousnesses: even though they entirely lack the capacity to discriminate words, in their direct cognition of objects such as form, they function at odds with marklessness and adhere to marks, and thus they deliver distorted cognitions. The principle being explained here should be understood in the same way.

[HBJ 1.792b13, WSC 372]

瑜伽說。 「見道智行遠離衆相。爾時聖智雖緣於苦、然於苦事不起分別。謂此爲苦取相而轉、餘諦亦爾。先世俗智所觀諦中一切相想皆得解脫、絕戲論智。但於其義緣眞如理、離相而轉。」 [T 1579.30.625a1–6, with some abridgments.]此文顯其不取名言、通達人空眞如理義。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

The intelligence and practices in the Path of Seeing are distantly removed from all marks. When one is practicing that path, although one’s higher intelligence perceives suffering, one refrains from discriminating suffering as a distinct phenomenon. This means that the consciousness functions while apprehending the marks of suffering. It is the same with the other truths. One is liberated from all of the marks and conceptions of the truths that were previously contemplated through conventional cognition, and cuts off knowing through conceptual proliferation. Still, in this form of knowing, [this consciousness] apprehends the principle of thusness, and functions free from marks. 107

This passage clarifies the point that it is through nonattachment to language that one attains the principle of the thusness of the selflessness of person.

[HBJ 1.792b19, WSC 372]

寶性論 「爲對治此四種顚倒故、有四種非顚倒法。謂於色等無常事中、生無常等想。如是四種顚倒對治。若依法身復是顚倒。」 [T 1611.31.829b20–24]此文顯其雖證人空故、成無倒、而迷法空此邊成倒。

The Ratnagotravibhāga 108 says:

For the purpose of correcting these four kinds of distortions, 109 there are four kinds of nondistorted teaching. This means that with regards to impermanent phenomena such as form [one should generate] thoughts of impermanence, and so forth. 110 In this way you can correct the four distortions. If one relies on the dharma-body, this is also a distortion. 111

This passage shows that even though one may be freed from distortions by realizing the selflessness of person, if one remains deluded in regard to the selflessness of dharmas, one still ends up being confused.

[HBJ 1.792b23, WSC 372]

又復、法空觀前方便道中亦有法執。卽加行智未達法空、分別取相。說名無明、亦名法執。唯一惠數 [The HBJ mistakenly adds the phrase 亦執解 here.] 亦解亦執。此中無別無明等數、不同一向迷亂法執。是故、無有無癡善根、與癡數等倶起過失。如對法論云。

Furthermore, there is also attachment to dharmas in the Path of Skillful Means prior to the insight into the selflessness of dharmas. This means that expedient awareness (upāya-jñā), which does not realize the selflessness of dharmas, continues to discriminate and adhere to characteristics. This is called nescience; it is also called attachment to dharmas. It is only the mental factor of wisdom that has the potential to be either liberated or attached. At this stage [of Skillful Means] there are no separate factors, such as nescience, that are not in the same way uniformly deluded in terms of attachment to dharmas. [792c] Therefore, lacking the wholesome root of nondelusion, and cognizing in tandem with mental factors such as delusion, one makes mistakes. As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

迷亂者、謂能所取執。不迷亂者、謂出世智及 [The HBJ adds here.] 後所得。迷亂不迷亂者、謂隨順 [T and KT have instead of HBJ/WSC’s here and next instance. T/KT make more sense.] 出世智所有聞惠等諸善根。分別所知境故、隨順無分別智故。 [T 1606.31.764a8–13. The text differs significantly from T and KT here: in those texts, the definition of 不迷亂者 comes later, and says 不迷亂者謂無分別智 “No delusion means the wisdom of nondiscrimination.”]

“Being deluded” refers to subjective and objective grasping... “Non-delusion” refers to supramundane [nondiscriminating] cognition and subsequently attained [discriminating] cognition. “Delusion-and-then-nondelusion” refers to the wholesome roots such as the knowledge derived from learning that are consonant with supramundane cognition. This is because one discriminates knowable objects (thus, confusion) and attunes oneself with nondiscriminating cognition (thus, non-confusion). 112

[HBJ 1.792c9, WSC 375]

瑜伽論 「依空勤修念住、菩薩略論六種妄想縛中令心解脫。何等爲六。所謂於身乃至於法發起內想、是初想縛。卽於此中發起外想、是二想縛。起內外想、是三想縛。若於十方諸有情界願令解脫修習念住、此中諸想是四想縛。若由此故於身心境修 [T and KT have here instead of . Also, instead of 身心 they have 身等.] 觀而住、此中諸想、是五想 [HBJ/WSC have the character here, but it is not contained in T or KT, and does not make sense.]縛。卽於身心修觀住者、此中諸想是六想縛。」 [T 1579.30.713a4–11.]依此等文、當知未入眞觀。已還一切心中不無妄想、皆有迷亂。迷亂妄想何非法執。

The Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

Relying on the practice of contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas, the bodhisattvas are in brief, said to bring about mental liberation within the six kinds of bondage in deluded conceptions. What are the six? When one gives rise to internal conceptions regarding the self and dharmas, this is the first conceptual bondage. When one, at this point gives rise to external conceptions, it is the second conceptual bondage. The arising of internal and external conceptions [together] is the third conceptual bondage. If one, in regard to all the realms of sentient beings of the ten directions, resolves to bring about liberation by cultivating the foundations of mindfulness, the conceptions arisen within this state constitute the fourth conceptual bondage. If, based on this, one cultivates the contemplation on physical and mental objects and lingers [in these states], the concepts that arise in this state are the fifth conceptual bondage. Thenceforth, if one lingers in the cultivation of the contemplation on body and mind, the conceptions produced here are the sixth conceptual bondage. (T 1579.30.713a4–11)

Based on this passage, we should understand that these practitioners have not yet entered into the true contemplation. From this level down, there is no state of mind that is free from false conceptualization—all have delusion. How could delusion and false conceptualization not include attachment to dharmas?

[HBJ 1.792c19, WSC 377]

若言人 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]空觀前方便道中無人執故、亦於法空觀前方便道中無法執者。他亦我觀 [This should probably be 無我觀, a standard technical term.]前方便道中不取我故、卽於無相 [Probably 無相定 is implied.]前方便道中亦不取相。此不類者、彼亦非類。由是道理故無過失。

If you say that since there is no attachment to person in the preparatory path prior to the meditation on the selflessness of person, then there is also no attachment to dharmas in the preparatory path prior to the meditation on the selflessness of dharmas. You could also say that since in the preparatory path prior to the contemplation on [no-]self, there is no apprehension of a self, in the preparatory path prior to the [contemplation of] signlessness, there is no apprehension of signs. The former position is not the same [as the prior example], nor is the latter. Since there is a principle to this, there is no fallacy.

[HBJ 1.792c24, WSC 378]


Some say that the views presented by both masters are equally valid (i.e., the position of the cognitive hindrances only operating in the sixth and seventh consciousness, and the position that they operate within all eight consciousnesses). How so? If you hold strictly to a loose interpretation of the matter, then the theory of the first scholar also makes sense. [793a] If you take a broader approach that includes both broad and narrower interpretations, then the theory of the second master also makes sense. If one recognizes that each approach is based on its own valid logic, the apparent contradictions in the texts can be well reconciled.


If we were to take the nescience of the attachment to dharmas in the specific interpretation and try to apply it throughout the situations of eight consciousnesses and three karmic moral qualities, it would not be in accord with principle (that underlies the first position), and thus it would be incorrect. If, on the other hand, you take attachment to dharmas interpreted broadly and try to limit it to the two [mano and manas] consciousnesses, with it not operating in wholesome states, then not only will not match the principle (that underlies the second position), but it will also be at odds with the scriptural sources. Since the theories of the two scholars are not [misapplied] like this, both theories have their own consistent rationale. The Essences of the Two Hindrances from the Perspectives of Active Binding and Latency

[HBJ 1.793a9, WSC 380]

三約纏及隨眠以明二障體者。本隨二惑現起之時、繁縛義重、說名爲纏。纏所熏習發種類、隨逐冥伏不覺故、名隨眠。隨眠與纏皆是障體。如瑜伽 「本隨二惑略二緣故、染惱有情。一由纏故、二由隨眠故。現行現起煩惱名纏。卽此種子未斷未害名曰隨眠。亦名麤重。又不覺位名曰隨眠。若在覺位說名爲纏故。」 [T 1579.30.623a23–26]

When the fundamental and derivative afflictions are in a state of activity, they have strong connotations of bondage; hence they are called “actively binding” (paryavasthāna). There is also a type of affliction that is generated as a result of perfuming by the binding afflictions, and which adhere in a concealed and subliminal state; these are called “latent” (anuśaya). The actively binding and the latent afflictions taken together constitute the hindrances. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

The fundamental and derivative afflictions have two main kinds of states in which they defile and torment sentient beings. The first are the actively binding afflictions, and the second are the latent afflictions. Manifestly active afflictions are called “binding.” When their seeds are not yet eliminated or subjugated, they are said to be “latent;” they are also called “debilitating” (Skt. dauṣṭhulya; K. chujung 麤重). Also, when they are functioning subliminally, they are said to be “latent.” When they are functioning at the level of conscious awareness, they are called “actively binding.” (T 1579.30.623a23–26)

[HBJ 1.793a17, WSC 382]

隨眠之內亦有二種。一卽種子、二是麤重。隨一品纏薰發此二。其相云何。染所熏 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .] 發不發調柔性。無堪能性在異熟識、而非能生現纏之能。此謂麤重、不名種子。又、彼識中染所熏 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]發成自類性故、能生現行說名種子。卽不調柔亦名麤重。

The latent aspect of affliction can also be distinguished into two kinds: the first are the seeds, and the second are the debilitating. These two occur as the result of perfuming from the single type of actively binding afflictions. What are their characteristics? [The first type is] that which is perfumed by defilement and both produces and does not produce adaptivity. Tendencies toward incapacity stick in the ripening consciousness (vipāka-vijñāna), 113 but are unable to actively bind. These afflictions are said to be debilitating, and are not considered to be “seeds.” [The second type includes] those which are perfumed by defilement in this consciousness and create further tendencies of the same type. Since these are able to give rise to manifest activity, they are called seeds. This is “inflexibility” (K. bu joyu; Skt. adānta), and is also called “debilitating” (K. chujung).

[HBJ 1.793a23, WSC 382]

瑜伽 「云何麤重相。謂若略說、無所堪能、不調柔相、是麤重相。此相有五。一現重相、二剛強相、三障礙相、四怯劣相、五不自在 [Here, following the prior four characteristics, HBJ has , but Taishō does not.] 轉無堪能相。由有此相、順 [Taishō’s  makes more sense than HBJ’s .]雜染品、違淸淨品。」 [T 1579.30.657a19–23, with abridgements and differences.] 是說麤重隨眠、而非種子隨眠。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

What are the characteristics of the debilitating tendencies? [793b] Basically, they bring about an inadaptability and incapability to respond to things—this is the characteristic of the debilitating [type of latency]. They have five characteristics: (1) manifest heaviness; (2) rigidity; (3) obstruction; (4) weakness, and (5) limitation, which devolves into incapability. Due to these characteristics, they gravitate to impure properties, and resist pure properties. 114

Thus they are called “debilitating latencies,” and not “seed latencies.”

[HBJ 1.793b5, WSC 384]

又、彼論言。 「於自體中所有種子、若煩惱品所攝名爲麤重。亦名隨眠。若異熟品所攝及餘無記品所攝、唯名麤重、不名隨眠。若信等善法品所攝種子、不名麤重亦非隨眠。」 [T 1579.30.284c3–7]此說種子隨眠亦卽是麤重義。

That treatise [the Yogâcārabhūmi] also says:

Among the seeds contained in the basis of personal existence (the ālayavijñāna), those that have afflictive properties are called debilitating. They are also called latent (i.e., anuśaya,—not actively manifest, but nonetheless having potential for further new reproduction). If they are contained in the category of the ripened (vipāka) or other categories of morally neutral factors, then they are only called debilitating—they are not said to be latent. The seeds of wholesome mental factors such as faith and so forth are neither debilitating nor latent. (T 1579.30.284c3–7)

This explains how the seeds have the meaning of latency, yet at the same time contain the implications of debilitation.

[HBJ 1.793b10, WSC 384]

又、彼論云 「世間靜慮 [Following T and KT, which have instead of HBJ’s .]但能漸捨彼品麤重、不拔種子。無漏靜慮二種倶捨」 [T 1579.30.331b7–9]此文並說二種隨眠。此二和合能作障礙、故此二種倶爲障體。

That treatise also says: “Conventional forms of meditation are able only to gradually remove debilitating tendencies—they do not extricate seeds. Uncontaminated forms of meditation remove both kinds together.” (T 1579.30.331b7–9) These passages explain both kinds of latent afflictions. When the two combine, they are able to create obstructions. Therefore these two together constitute the hindrances [of affliction].

[HBJ 1.793b13, WSC 385]

又、種子內亦有二種、謂本性界及習成種子。此二和合能生現纏。故二種子皆是障體。如瑜伽說 「卽於如是後有意中有無明種及無明界。此二種子所隨逐意、所緣法界、彼由宿世依惡說法及毘那耶所生分別薩迦耶見、以爲依止集成今界。卽由此界增上力故、發起倶生薩迦耶見。於善說法毘那耶中亦復現行能爲障礙故」 [T 1579.30.788a24–29]

Within the seeds there are also two types: inherent kernels (dhātu) 115 and seeds formed by habituation. 116 Combining with each other, the two are able to bring about active entanglement. Therefore both types constitute the [afflictive] hindrances. As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

... then, within the subsequently-existent [thinking] consciousness are found the seeds of nescience and kernels of nescience. 117 The mano consciousness that these two types of seeds adhere to and the objective realm upon which they are contingent combine to form the present world based on the discriminated view of entities brought about in previous lives by the practitioner’s reliance on incorrect explanations of the Dharma and the Vinaya. [When that view, developed in prior lives,] is compounded in the present world, one produces the innately arisen view of entities. Even though they may now have access to reliable explanations of the Dharma and the Vinaya, these [wrong views] re-manifest and act as hindrances. (T 1579.30.788a24–29)

[HBJ 1.793b22, WSC 387]

如煩惱障有纏隨眠、所知障中亦有二種種子。是卽性緣性分別、是故亦爲所知障。如顯揚論 「復次於依他起自體中、有二種遍計所執自體分別。謂、隨緣 [Taishō and KT have instead of , but I follow the HBJ here.]覺及隨眠數習、習氣隨眠。」 [T 1579.30.788a24–29]

In the same way that the afflictive hindrances have the two aspects of active binding and latency, the cognitive hindrances also have two kinds of seeds (i.e., latent aspects)—the dependently originated and the discriminated; therefore these also comprise the cognitive hindrances. As the Xianyang lun says: “Furthermore, within the essence of the other-dependent nature, two kinds of pervasively conceptualized essences are distinguished; namely, [793c] the awareness that arises dependently and that of latent habituation—the latency of habit energies.” (T 1602.31.508b4–5)

[HBJ 1.793c2, WSC 387]

意言與習光 名義互光起
非眞分別故 是名分別相

The Mahāyāna-sūtrâlaṃkāra 118 says:

Thought and language share in perfuming appearances,

Names and their meanings manifest each other.

Since these are discriminated and not real

They are called “discriminated characteristics.”


此偈顯分別相有其三種。一有覺分別相、二無覺分別相、三相因 [HBJ has a note here, offering the possibility of instead of . Based on T and KT, it should be .]分別相。意言者謂義 [I follow T, which has instead of , here and in the next position.]想、義卽想境、想卽心數。由此想於義、能如是如是起意言解。此是有覺分別相。習光者、習謂意言種子。光謂從種子直起義光。未能如是如是起意言解。此是無覺分別相。 [The source text has the words 名義 here.]互光起者、謂依名起義光、依義起名光。境界非眞唯是分別相 [The source text has the words 世間所謂 若名若義 here.] 此是相因 [HBJ has but as found in T and KT makes more sense.]分別相。 [T 1604.31.613c14–24, with abridgements.]


The commentary says: 119

... This verse explains the [discriminated] character to be threefold, consisting of: (1) the discursive discriminated character; (2) the nondiscursive discriminated character, and (3) the mutually caused discriminated character. “Thought and language” refers to the conceptualization of meanings; “meanings” are the objects that are conceptualized, and conceptualization (saṃjñā) is a mental factor. Based on the conceptualization of meanings, there arise understandings of this or that according to thought and language. This is the discursively discriminated character. What are “perfumed appearances?” Perfuming refers to the seeds of thought and language. “Appearance” means that seeds directly give rise to the appearance of meanings. When one is not able to give rise to understandings of this or that according to thought and language, this is the nondiscursive discriminated character. “Names and meanings manifest each other” means that based on words, meanings are illuminated, and based on meanings, words are illuminated. The objective realm is not real, but only of discriminated character [the world consists only of such-and-such names and objects]. This is the mutually caused discriminated character. 120

Based on these passages, we can understand that all active seeds are discriminatory, and thus [help to] constitute the cognitive hindrances. The remaining distinctions in interpretation can be understood according to the above model. The Constitution of the Hindrances in Terms of the Afflictions Proper and their Habit Energies (Vāsanās).

[HBJ 1.793c14, WSC 389]

四就正習簡障體者。如上所說、二障體性直礙聖道、名爲正障。由前數習滅、後有氣髣髴相似、故名習氣。然此習氣惣說有二。謂別習氣及 [HBJ’s has been corrected with .]通習氣。

As explained above, since the substance of the two hindrances directly obstructs the holy paths, they are called the “hindrances proper.” When the previously ingrained habits are extinguished, energies remain bearing their imprint; therefore they are called habit energies (vāsanā). These habit energies can be classified into two general types: habit energies that function in specific situations and habit energies that function pervasively.

[HBJ 1.793c18, WSC 390]

別習氣者、唯於煩惱障有、於所知障卽無。是別習氣亦有現行及其種子。其相云何。且如有一生高貴家庭、 [WSC has instead of , but the latter seems correct here.]歷多生長習憍慢。憍慢心中數習奴婢名言、於中取相分別。所薰種子卽有二義。謂生慢使及生取相。此人修道得聖果後、生慢使邊種子被斷。生取相邊非其所斷。故此種子能生現行、無慢心中輒言奴婢。如是等名慢使習氣。餘惑習氣皆亦如是。 Habit Energies that Function in Specific Situations

The habit energies that function in specific situations only appear within the afflictive hindrances, and not within the cognitive hindrances. These habit energies also have the two aspects of manifest activity and seeds. What are their characteristics? Take, for example, the case of someone born into a family of high social rank, who has passed through a great number of lifetimes in this status, and has been long habituated by arrogance. In the mental state of arrogance, he has become accustomed to the use of deprecatory language toward his servants, and in this condition, apprehends marks and discriminates. The seeds that are perfumed from this are of two kinds: those that engender the proclivity toward arrogance and those that produce adherence to marks [of status, etc.]. [794a] If this person cultivates the Way and attains sagehood, the seeds that produce the tendency to be arrogant are destroyed. But the seeds that create the adherence to marks are not destroyed. Therefore these seeds can be activated, and the person, even though not in the mental state of arrogance, may still suddenly use deprecatory speech toward servants. This kind of thing is called the habit energy of the tendency toward arrogance. Habit energies derived from other afflictions operate in the same way.

[HBJ 1.794a5, WSC 391]

此等煩惱性障之習氣、不入煩惱障中所攝。以非能障二乘道故。取相分別迷法空理、是故正爲所知障體。如瑜伽 「又說阿羅漢或因習氣 [Following WSC, Taishō, and KT which have instead of .]無染汚心、騫脣露齒逌 [Taishō’s  seems better than HBJ’s .]爾而笑。」 [T 1579.30.738b29–738c1] 智度論 「起儛等事是愛習氣。呵 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]水神等是慢習氣」 [T 1509.25.649c15–16.]如是等文明別習氣。

These habit energies of afflictive character are not included among the afflictive hindrances proper. This is because they are not able to hinder the practices of the two vehicles. Since the discriminations that adhere to marks obfuscate the principle of the selflessness of dharmas, they are properly regarded as part of the essence of the cognitive hindrances. As the Yogâcārabhūmi says: “Some arhats, 121 because of the habit energies in their undefiled mind, will break into smile when they meet someone with protruding lips and buck teeth.” 122 The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra says: “Such acts as rising to dance [reveal the existence of] habit energies of desire. The rude speech to Varuṇa is [a result of] habit energies of pride.” 123 These passages show the connotations of the habit energies that function in specific situations.

[HBJ 1.794a11, WSC 393]

所言通習氣者、謂二障中皆有殘氣、無有現行、亦非種子。唯彼氣類無堪能性故、此習氣但名麤重。其相 [HBJ has instead of .]云何。 Pervasive Habit Energies

“Pervasive habit energies” refers to the case where both kinds of hindrances contain trace energies that are neither actively manifest nor in seed form. Since these energies are strictly of the nature of incapacitation, they are simply called debilitating. What are their characteristics?

如煩惱品所攝麤重、對治未生、其勢增強。無漏道生、種子滅時、彼品麤重皆悉輕微 [Correcting to . 輕徵 appears in Taishō twice, while 輕微 appears 322 times, most importantly in the YBh as the antonym of 麤重. (T 1579.30.479c24).]之時、非彼品攝。依異熟識隨逐不離故、名異熟識品之麤重。又、此麤重漏水之遺氣而非是漏水。故亦說名有染麤重。猶如子思父之遺體。但是有父、非卽是父有漏 [The HBJ and WSC versions have disagreement regarding the usage of (contamination) and (defilement, pollution). But since (1) I read here as being played for its original, concrete connotations of “leaking” as is indicated by the term 漏水, and (2) I have a sense of this passage that what is being referred to here are subtle functions of āsrava, rather than the more gross function of kleśa, I do not follow WSC’s change from to .]之義、當知亦爾。

They are like the debilitating hindrances that are afflictive in character, in that as long as they are not counteracted, their energy increases. When the uncontaminated path is practiced, and the seeds are extinguished, then the debilitations become insignificant, and they can no longer be categorized as afflictions. Because they adhere to the ripening consciousness (the ālayavijñāna ), they are called the debilitating [habit energies] of the ripening consciousness. Also, these debilitating [energies] are like the trace energies of dripping water, which are not dripping water itself. Therefore they are also called the “defiled debilitations.” It is just like the case of a son reflecting on his deceased father’s remains. He only thinks of this as his father—not as the father’s remains. 124 This concept should be understood in the same way.

[HBJ 1.794a21, WSC 394]

瑜伽說。 「問。諸煩惱品所有麤重、阿羅漢等永斷無餘。復有何品麤重彼所未斷、由斷此故說名如來永斷習氣。答。異熟品麤重阿羅漢等所未能斷。唯有如來名究竟斷。」 [T 1579.30.619b23–26.]

As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

Question: The debilitating hindrances of afflictive character are permanently eliminated without remainder by the arhats. After this, what kind of debilitating hindrances still remain to be eliminated, and which, once eliminated, allow one to be called “a tathāgata who has permanently eliminated all habit energies”?

Answer: The debilitating hindrances that are of the ripening type (i.e., contained in the ālayavijñāna) are the ones that the arhats have not been able to eliminate. Only the tathāgatas are said to completely extinguish them. (T 1579.30.619b23–26)

[HBJ 1.794b1, WSC 394]

又、下文言。 「復次略有二種麤重。一漏 [Again, in this, and the next four occurrences of , the HBJ originally has with a note indicating the alternative of . Since KT and T also have, and this also better fits the context of the discussion, I have used .]麤重、二有漏麤重。漏麤重者、阿羅漢等煩惱斷時、悉皆永斷。此謂有隨眠者、有識身中不安隱性無堪能性。有漏麤重者、隨眠斷時從染所生漏所薰發。本所得性、不安隱性、苦 [T and KT have instead of HBJ’s , which seems to work better grammatically.] 依附性。與彼相似無堪能性、皆得微薄。又、此有漏麤重名煩惱習氣、羅漢獨覺所未能斷。唯有如來能究竟斷。」 [T 1579.30.625b16–23.]故。如說煩惱習氣性相、所知障氣當知亦爾。 故此習氣通於二障。

Again, in a passage below, it says:

[794b] Again, there are two general types of debilitating [hindrances]. The first are the debilitating tendencies of simple contamination; the second are the debilitating tendencies caused by residual contamination. The debilitating tendencies of simple contamination are completely extinguished by arhats when they extinguish afflictions. This means that when someone still has latent hindrances, there is unease and incapacitation in mind and body. The debilitating [hindrances] due to residual contamination are produced by the perfuming from contamination born of [remaining] impurity at the time the latencies are eliminated. Their basic nature is that of discomfort and adherence to suffering. There are all thinned out together with the closely resembling incapacitating hindrances. Furthermore, these residually contaminated debilitations are called the habit energies of the afflictions, and they cannot be extirpated by śrāvakas 125 and pratyekabuddhas 126 . Only the tathāgatas are able to completely extinguish them. (T 1579.30.625b16–23)

The nature and characteristics of the cognitive habit energies can be understood to be the same as that which was explained for the habit energies of the afflictions. Hence, these habit energies are common to both kinds of hindrances.

[HBJ 1.794b12, WSC 396]

對法論 「如來永斷一切煩惱障、所知障、及彼習氣。」 [T 1606.31.694c9–10.] 寶性論 「不淨者。一切凡夫有煩惱障故、有垢者。以諸聲聞辟支佛等有知障故、有點者。以諸菩薩摩訶薩等依彼二種習氣障故」 [T 1611.31.823b8–11. If we read the original text, it would seem that this line is slightly misquoted. Before the initial phrase 不淨者the text should probably say 無有差別如來智眼了了知故. After the final phrase 依彼二種習氣障故 it should probably say 奮迅者. In order to make the point clear, I have translated according to this correction.] 以此等文、當知二障皆有習氣。一切菩薩所未能斷故、此習氣非二障攝、別爲第三名、習氣障。

As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says: “The tathāgatas permanently eliminate the afflictive hindrances, the cognitive hindrances, and their habit energies.” (T 1606.31.694c9–10) The Ratnagotravibhāga says:

[Because they are perceived by the fully penetrating wisdom of the tathāgata’s wisdom-eye which lacks distinctions,] they are impure. Because all worldlings possess the afflictive hindrances, they are defiled. Because all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are affected by the cognitive hindrances, they have specks [of obscuration]. Because all bodhisattva-mahāsattvas are affected by the habit energies of the two hindrances, [they are spurred into activity]. 127

Based on these passages, we should understand that both kinds of hindrances have habit energies. Since they are something that the bodhisattvas are unable to extinguish, these habit energies are not subsumed under the two hindrances proper, and thus are separately designated with a third name, as the “habit-energy-hindrances.”

[HBJ 1.794b18, WSC 398]

若就性類相似之義、亦名最極微細二障。如深蟄經說十一障中言。 「於如來地、對治極微細最極微細煩惱障及所知障。」 [T 676.16.702a10–11.]故。

If we look at them from the perspective of their similarity in nature, we can also call them the most extremely subtle two hindrances. As the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra explains in its section on the eleven hindrances: “At the stage of Tathāgata [the practitioner] corrects the extremely subtle and most extremely subtle of the afflictive hindrances and cognitive hindrances.” (T 676.16.702a10–11)

又復、此二障氣種子斷時、方有習氣。未斷已前無微薄故、種斷、無間方有微薄。故名爲無間生習氣。如前所說別習氣者、煩惱種子未斷已前、已有習氣。是故說名前生習氣。如 瑜伽 說。 「隨眠者、有二種。謂可害及非可害。習氣者亦有二種。謂無間生習氣及前生習氣。」 [T 1579.30.627a22 and 656a27–b1.]故。

Furthermore, at the time of the elimination of the seeds and habit energies of the two kinds of hindrances, there are further remaining habit energies. Since, during the time prior to this elimination there were no residual traces, when the seeds are eliminated, the residual traces instantly appear. Therefore they are called instantaneously-arisen habit energies. In the case of the previously-explained habit energies that function in specific situations, [794c] during the time when the seeds of affliction are not yet eliminated, there are already habit energies. Therefore they are called “previously-generated” habit energies. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “There are two kinds of latencies: the malignant and the benign. There are also two kinds of habit energies: instantaneously generated habit energies and previously generated habit energies.” (T 1579.30.627a22 and 656a27–b1) The Substance of the Hindrances from the Perspective of the Five Categories of Dharmas

[HBJ 1.794c4, WSC 399]

五、約五法定障體者。何謂五法。一心法、二心所有法、三色法、四心不相 [ is corrected from .]應行法、五無爲法。如前所說二障現行、直是心所有法所攝。論其眷屬、心法、色法、心不相 [ is corrected from .]應行法、亦相應行法、亦相從攝。

The fifth section ascertains the substance of the hindrances from the point of view of the five categories of dharmas. What are the five categories? They are: (1) mind; (2) mental factors; (3) form; (4) dharmas not concomitant with mind, and (5) unconditioned dharmas. In the case of the active states of the two kinds of hindrances that were explained above, the hindrances are, strictly speaking, understood as being contained within the category of mental factors. 128 But if we discuss the matter in terms of the kinds of dharmas with which the hindrances can be associated by extension, then the dharmas of mind, those of form, and those not directly associated with mind—as well as dharmas functioning concomitantly [with mind] can also be included.

[HBJ 1.794c9, WSC 400]


Between the two kinds of latencies, the manifest activities of the seed latencies are included in the two categories [of mind and mental factors]. Since they are of the nature of dependent arising and discrimination, previously arisen habit energies, manifestly active factors, and seeds are also included in the two categories of mind and mental factors. All debilitating types of latencies, as well as instantaneously-produced habit energies are included exclusively in the categories of dharmas not concomitant with mind; this is because they are by nature not concomitant. Those that are contained within the twenty-four dharmas not concomitant with mind are those possessed by unenlightened sentient beings, because they are not able to maintain holy behavior.

[HBJ 1.794c15, WSC 401]


However, the natures of unenlightened beings contain both coarse and subtle hindrances. The coarse are the debilitating tendencies that continue to exist at the time when the afflictions removable in the Path of Seeing have not yet been eliminated, making one unable to accord with the holy standard. At this time they are designated as unenlightened sentient beings. What are the subtle? Those whose debilitating tendencies, up to the attainment of the adamantine concentration 129 are, according to particular obstructions, unable to accord with the holy standard. Therefore both are said to be of the nature of unenlightened sentient beings. Although there are these two kinds, the treatises only deal with the coarse hindrances in the nature of unenlightened sentient beings. It is like the case of the four marks [of existence], which have both coarse and subtle. Since the subtle is momentary, and the coarse is continuous, the treatises base their discussions only on the coarse aspect.

[HBJ 1.794c22, WSC 402]

對法論 「當知依相續位建異 [HBJ has and the source text has . The latter seems correct.]生等、非約刹那。」 [T 1606.31.700b29.]故。異生性中麤細亦爾、故知麤重 130 異生性所攝。上來五重合爲第一、依顯了門出障體竟。

As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says: “You should understand that the notion of unenlightened sentient beings 131 and so forth is established based on continuity, and not on momentariness.” (T 1606.31.700b29) Therefore, it is the same with the coarse and subtle 132 within the nature of unenlightened sentient beings, and so we can understand that both coarse and subtle hindrances are found in the natures of unenlightened sentient beings.

This marks the conclusion of the above five sections, which constitute the first interpretation—the explicit interpretation of the substance of the hindrances. The Substance of the Two Hindrances from the Inexplicit Perspective

[HBJ 1.795a2, WSC 403]

二依隱蜜門出二障體者。六種染心是煩惱礙體。根本無明是智礙體。言六染者、一執相應染、二不斷相應染、三分別智相應染、四現色不相應染、五能見心不相應染、六根本業不相應染。此中初二在於六識、第三一染在第七識、後之三染倶在第八識。於中委曲具如起信論記中說 133 此不重顯。此煩惱礙六染之中已攝前門二障皆盡。

The afflictive obstructions have the six defiled mental states as their substance, while the cognitive obstructions have fundamental nescience as their substance. The six defiled mental states are: (1) defilement concomitant with attachment; (2) defilement concomitant with non-interruption; (3) defilement concomitant with discriminatory cognition; (4) defilement not concomitant with manifest form; (5) defilement not concomitant with the subjectively viewing mind, and (6) defilement not concomitant with fundamental karma. Among these, the first two reside in the sixth consciousness; the third defilement resides in the seventh consciousness and the last three defilements reside in the eighth consciousness. Since the content of this is explained in detail in my Expository Notes (to the Awakening of Faith), 134 I will not repeat it here. This interpretation of the afflictive obstructions in terms of these six kinds of defiled mental states fully covers the content of both hindrances as explained above.

[HBJ 1.795a11, WSC 405]


Fundamental nescience, which is the basis of the six defiled mental states, is the most extremely subtle form of darkness and non-awareness. Confused in regard to the oneness and equality of the nature [of living beings] within, one is unable to apprehend the distinctions in characteristics without. Therefore one is capable neither of apprehending the marks of distinctions, nor the true illumination. 135 Since the characteristic [of the true illumination] is great and close at hand, this nescience is the most distant thing from it. It is like the nearness of the lowest acolyte to the head monk [which might allow the acolyte to not properly appreciate the wisdom of his teacher]. Within all of cyclic existence there is not a single thing that is more subtle than nescience that serves as a basis. Only with this as a beginning [does thought] suddenly appear. Therefore it is called “beginningless nescience.”

[HBJ 1.795a18, WSC 405]

本業經言。 「其住地前便無法起、故名無始無明住地。」 [T 1485.24.1022a7–8.] 起信論云。 「以不達一法界故、心不相應忽然起念、名爲無明。」 [T 1666.32.577c5–7.]故。

As the Sutra of Primary Activities 136 says: “Before this entrenchment no dharma has appeared; therefore it is called the entrenchment of beginningless nescience.” (T 1485.24.1022a7–8) The Awakening of Faith says: “Because one has not apprehended the single dharma realm, the mind is not aware [of its total unity with thusness.] At that moment suddenly a thought arises. This is called nescience.” (T 1666.32.577c5–7)

此言無前及忽起者、非是竪望時節前後。唯是橫論細麤緣起。如是無明、雖非與異熟識相應、而爲作本和合不離。故依此識方說其相。由是攝在梨耶識位。如彼論云 「以依阿利耶識、說有無明不覺而起故。」 [T 1666.32.577b4–5]是謂隱密門中智礙體相。出體分竟。

The characterization of nescience in these passages as “unprecedented” and “suddenly arising,” is not done from the standpoint of the temporal divisions of before and after. It is only a provisional explanation of subtlety and coarseness in dependent arising. Even though this nescience is not concomitant with the ripening consciousness, it creates a fundamental and insoluble fusion with it. Therefore, based on this consciousness, we provisionally explain its characteristics. It is based on this reasoning that [nescience] is said to exist at such a fundamental level of consciousness as the ālayavijñāna. As the Treatise [on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith] says: “It is said that nescience arises without awareness depending on the ālayavijñāna.” (T 1666.32.577b4–5) The above is called the inexplicit explanation of the substance of the cognitive obstructions.

The section on the explanation of the substance of the hindrances ends here.

2.3. The Function of the Hindrances

[HBJ 1.795b4, WSC 407]


This section, as above, will be explained in the framework of the two perspectives [of explicit and inexplicit]. From the explicit perspective, the abilities of the afflictive hindrances are basically two: the ability to produce karma and the ability to bring rebirth. The ability to produce karma is again twofold: the first is the ability to produce directive karma 137 and the second is the ability to produce particularizing karma. 138

2.3.1. The Explicit Interpretation The Afflictive Hindrances The Ability to Produce Karma

[HBJ 1.795b7, WSC 408]


Generally speaking, all afflictions produce directive karma as well as particularizing karma. If we take them in terms of their most prominent characteristics, then nescience is able to produce directive karma while thirst and grasping are able to produce particularizing karma. 139 As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

「十二支中、二業所攝、三煩惱攝。又二業中初是引業、後是生業。三煩惱中、一能發起引業、二能發起生業。」 [T 1579.30.612b6–10.]故。此中發引業者、發現起業。發生業者、發種子業。由能薰發先行種子、令成能生轉爲有故。

Among the twelve limbs [of dependent arising], there are two kinds of karma and three kinds of affliction. Of the two kinds of karma, the first is directive karma and the next is particularizing karma. Among the three afflictions, one (nescience) is able to produce directive karma and the other two (thirst and grasping) are able to produce particularizing karma. (T 1579.30.612b6–10)

Among these, the production of directive karma is equivalent to the production of manifestly active karma. The production of particularizing karma is equivalent to the production of seed karma. Based on the ability to perfume and generate the seeds of prior activities, it causes them to mature, to be able to come to life and come forth into visible existence.

[HBJ 1.795b15, WSC 410]


Directive karma has two kinds of generative potentiality: (1) the ability to generate active binding when producing evil karma; and (2) the ability to generate the latent aspects of virtuous and nonpropelling karma. When generating particularizing karma, all three karmas of evil, virtuous and nonpropelling are active, and craving and grasping are able to arise. Furthermore, within the generation of directive karma, innate afflictions (afflictions carried over from previous lifetimes) produce karmas with specific results. Only the afflictions arisen from discrimination (manifest afflictions produced in the present lifetime) accord with that which they are associated, and are able to produce the three kinds (i.e., good, bad, and nonpropelling) of directive karma of general results.

[HBJ 1.795b19, WSC 410]


Why is this so? If you fully understand that the three realms are nothing but suffering and also understand the causes for the arising of suffering, you will naturally not behave in a way that would cause suffering. By the same token, if you do not fully understand the causes of suffering, the impetus of this nescience acts to produce directive karma. Again, if you understand no-self and the equality of self and other, what could compel you to create your own individual retributive karma? Hence, if you do not fully understand no-self, the impetus of this nescience can lead to the generation of the directive karma of general retribution.

[HBJ 1.795c1, WSC 410]


For this reason, the afflictions [that arise] due to confusion regarding phenomena—and which are to be eliminated in the Path of Cultivation 140 —are able to produce the directive karma of general retribution. Following this argument, the nescience that is associated with the innately arisen view of self, which is confused in regard to selflessness and the equality of self and other, is actually able to generate both directive and particularizing karma. However, when one reaches the stages subsequent to the Path of Seeing, one is free from their concomitants, and since their power is weakened, these karmas are unable to come forth. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

「問。何因緣故福不動業、由正思擇功力而起。仍說用無明爲緣耶。答。由不了世俗苦因爲緣、發非福行。由不了勝義苦因爲緣、生福不動業故。」 [T 1579.30.325a7–11, paraphrased.]此明由迷惡趣苦苦之因緣、以此無明能發罪業。故言不了世俗苦因。由迷善趣行苦之因、以此無明能發善業。故言不了勝義苦因。

Question: What kinds of causes and conditions allow the beneficial and nonpropelling karmas to be properly produced from the activity of thought? Can nescience also be a condition for this?

Answer: It is due to a lack of understanding of the ordinary causes of suffering that one engages in nonbeneficial actions. It is due to a lack of understanding of the supramundane causes of suffering that one creates beneficial and nonpropelling karmas. (T 1579.30.325a7–11, paraphrased)

This clarifies the fact that it is due to delusion in regard to the causes and conditions for ordinary suffering in the evil destinies that nescience is able to bring about sinful activity. Therefore the text says that one does not understand the ordinary causes of suffering. And it is due delusion in regard to the causes [and conditions] of the suffering induced by the changes that occur in conditioned existence in the good destinies that nescience is able to bring about virtuous activity. Therefore the text says that one does not understand the supramundane causes of suffering.

[HBJ 1.795c9, WSC 412]

對法論 「愚有二種。一異熟愚、二眞實義愚。由異熟愚故發不善行。由眞實義愚故、發福不動行。初者、是染汚性無明合時、心不容受信解異熟行相正見故。後者、眞實義卽四諦。於彼愚故、未見諦者。雖起善心、由彼隨眠所隨縛故、亦名愚癡。由彼勢力於三界苦、不如眞知、便能發起後有因性福不動行。非已見諦者能發此業、無眞實義愚故。是故彼業說因此生。」 [T 1606.31.728c9–18.]

The *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

There are two kinds of confusion. The first is the confusion in regard to karmic ripening; the second is confusion in regard to ultimate reality. It is due to the confusion in regard to karmic ripening that one engages in unwholesome activity. It is due to confusion in regard to ultimate reality that one produces beneficial and nonpropelling activity. The first confusion occurs when defilement combines with nescience, and one lacks the capacity for the correct view of confidence in regard to the defining activities of karmic ripening. As for the second kind of confusion, “ultimate reality” refers to the Four Truths. Because of this confusion, one does not perceive the truths. Even if you create wholesome mental states, since these are still pulled about by latent afflictions, they are still said to be “confused.” Due to their influence on the suffering extending throughout the three realms, one fails to accurately cognize reality, and hence generates the causal nature of beneficial and nonpropelling activity in a subsequent existence. One who has already apprehended the truths does not produce this karma, as she or he lacks confusion in regard to ultimate reality. Therefore, that karma is said to be generated by these causes. (T 1606.31.728c9–18)

[HBJ 1.795c22, WSC 414]


This is discussed in order to make it clear that the production of karma and nescience are both involved with delusion in regard to the meaning of the Four Truths, as well as the failure to understand [the principle of] ripening of causes into effects. Yet when one engages in wholesome activity, it is because even though one has not fully comprehended the principle of the Four Truths, one is nonetheless able to have confidence in the ripening of causes into effects. At this point, under the influence of the latencies of nescience one does not properly understand how causes ripen into effects. [796a] When one engages in immoral activities, it is not only due to a lack of comprehension of the principle of the Four Truths, but also because of a lack of firm confidence in the fact that every cause ripens into an effect. Therefore, at this time, nescience is specifically termed “confusion in regard to causal ripening.” The Ability to Bring about the Continuance of Rebirth

[HBJ 1.796a4, WSC 416]

次明結生相續力者。所結之生不出二種。一者正生、二者方便生。結正生時亦有二種生。有色界中有時結生、無色界死有時結 [Based on the context, the character might be missing here.]。 二結方便生唯在死有。然臨死有心有其三位。謂前三性心位、其次染汚心位、最後異熟心位。此中初二是意 [WSC corrects HBJ’s to .]意識。最後一心是異熟識。又、三性位非結生時、後之二心是結生位。又、後二中、初是現纏結生之位、後是隨眠結生位也。

Next is the clarification of the ability to bring about continuous rebirth. There are two types of births to which we are linked: regular birth and expedient birth. In terms of timing there are two kinds of regular birth: birth at a definite time during existence in the form realm, and birth at a definite time upon dying from a life in the formless realm. The second kind, expedient birth, occurs only in conjunction with dying. Yet, as one approaches death, the existent mind has three levels: the first is the level of the mind of the three [karmic moral] qualities; the next is the level of defiled mind; the last is the level of the karmically ripening mind. The first two are the mano and manas consciousnesses. The last is the ripening consciousness (the ālayavijñāna). The mind in the level of the three qualities does not appear at the moment of birth, but the latter two mental levels are present at the time of birth. Also, between the latter two, the first is the level of entering birth with actively binding [afflictions], and the second is the level of entering birth with latent [afflictions].

[HBJ 1.796a13, WSC 417]

瑜伽說。 「又、欲界沒生上地時、欲界善心、無記心、無間上地染汚心生。以一切結生相續皆染汚心方得成故。又、從上地沒生下地時、從一切上地善心、染汚心、無記心 [Taishō adds 無間 here.]、唯有下地染汚心生。」 [T 1579.30.684b10–18, abridged.]

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

Furthermore, when one dies in the desire realm and is reborn into a higher level, the continuity of wholesome states of mind and qualitatively indeterminate states directly produces defiled states of mind in the higher existence. This is because continued incarnation can take place only through defiled states of mind. Furthermore, when one is reborn into a lower level from a higher level, it is because the uninterrupted continuity of the wholesome states of mind of the higher stage, defiled states of mind, and qualitatively indeterminate states of mind produce only defiled states of mind when one is reborn into a lower level. (T 1579.30.684b10–18 abridged)

又下文言。 「臨命終時最後念心必是異熟法、結生相續無間之心亦是異熟。」 [T 1579.30.664c19–20.]故。若論中有最後念心必是染汚。從此已前卽無定位。結生時節 [WSC replaces HBJ’s with .]略說如是。

Again, a later passage says: 141 “Since the final thought before the moment of death is necessarily a ripened mental state, the mind of the unbroken string of rebirths is also ripened (and thus neutral in quality). (T 1579.30.664c19–20) ”

If in the Yogâcārabhūmi there is a final mental moment, it is necessarily defiled. Before this, there is no definable stage. In short, the situation at the time of birth is explained like this.

[HBJ 1.796a23, WSC 420]

此中、何等煩惱能結生者。通相而言自地 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s .]所有一切煩惱皆能結生。論最勝者、唯由倶生無記我愛結生相續。如瑜伽說。

Within this context, what kinds of afflictions are able to bring about rebirth? [796b] Broadly speaking, all the afflictions in one’s present stage are able to bring about rebirth. To be very specific however, it is only the morally indeterminate inborn attachment to self that brings about continuous rebirth. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

「問。於彼彼界 [T and K have instead of ]結生相續彼彼身中、當言全界一切煩惱皆結生耶。爲不全耶。答。當言全、非不全。何以故。若未離欲、於此生處方得受生、非離欲故。又、未離欲者、諸煩惱品所有麤重隨結自身、亦能爲彼異身生因故。又、將受生時、於自體上、貪愛現行於男於女、若愛若恚、亦互現行。」 [T 1579.30.629c9–16.]乃至廣說。此文就其通相說也。

Question: When people are reborn into various realms in various bodies, should it be said that all the afflictions of all the realms bring about rebirth? Or are there some that do not?

Answer: They all do, and there are none that do not. Why? It is only when one is not yet free from desire that one is reborn in these places—it does not happen if one is free from desire. Furthermore, when one is not free from desire, all debilitating tendencies of afflictive character will continue to adhere to one’s body, and also serve as the causes for the birth of another body. Also, at the time of undergoing rebirth, on the surface of the self, sexual desire is activated. Love and hatred manifest one after another. (T 1579.30.629c9–16)

And so on. This passage explains the matter in its general aspect.

[HBJ 1.796b9, WSC 422]

彼論言。 「云何生。謂我愛無間已生故[...]乃至卽於此生處中、有異熟無間、得生。」 [T 1579.30.282a13–16.]

The [Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra] also says: “Why is there birth? It occurs because of the incessant arising of attachment to self . . . [It is because the seeds] in from this life ripen without interruption that one attains birth.” 142

對法論 「相續力者、有九種命終心。與自體愛相應、於三界中各各命相續。此自體愛唯此倶生。不了所緣境有覆無記性攝、而能了別我自體生差別境界。由是勢力諸異生輩令無間中 [Using Taishō’s instead of HBJ’s .]有相續。」 [T 1606.31.714b27–c6. This section is also greatly abridged. The full text reads: 相續力者、有九種命終心。與自體愛相應於三界中各令欲色無色界生相續。謂從欲界沒還生欲界者即以欲界自體愛相應命終心結生相續。若生色無色界者即以色無色界自體愛相應命終心結生相續如是從色無色界沒。若即生彼若生餘處、有六種心、如其所應盡當知。又此自體愛唯是倶生、不了所緣境有覆無記性攝而能分別我自體生差別境界。由此勢力諸異生輩令無間中有。] 如此等文就別相說。

The *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

The ability to bring about continuous [of rebirth] includes the nine kinds of near-death states of mind. These are concomitant with attachment to the self-essence (ātma-bhāva), and enable the linking of lives in each of the three realms. This attachment to a self-essence is wholly innate. Even though one does not cognize the impedimentary indeterminate qualities that are found in the objective realm, one is able to distinguish “I”—a self-essence, and give rise to a separately distinguished objective realm. Because of this impetus, all worldlings are led into incessant continuation of their existence. 143

These passages explain [the matter of continuity of rebirth] from the perspective of a stricter interpretation (i.e., that which says that most of the impetus for rebirth comes specifically from the deep attachment to the notion of self).

[HBJ 1.796b17, WSC 423]

所以未捨上地法時、能起下地結生惑者、此有二義。一、若在上地、上地業盡、臨命終時、生處法爾必定。先退彼境地功德、是故此時能起下結。猶如生無想天臨命終時、生處法爾必定。先退其無想事、然後命終。此亦如是故。二、凡夫生上、非伏 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s , here and next.]我見。由此未伏我見力故、將生下時、能起我愛。

There are two ways that we can understand how when afflictions are not abandoned at higher-level states they can produce rebirth in lower levels:

One is that if one abides in a higher state and the karma of the higher state is exhausted, at the end of one’s life the circumstances of rebirth are naturally determined. Since one has previously fallen away from the merit attained in that stage, at that time a lower rebirth is brought about. This is just like the case of the time of the approach of death after a birth in the no-thought heaven—one’s circumstances of rebirth are naturally determined. One’s life has come to an end after one has retrogressed from non-thought states. This is the same sort of case.

The second case is that where worldlings are reborn into a higher level, but have not yet overcome the view of self. Because of their not overcoming the power of the view of self, when they are reborn into a lower level of existence, they generate attachment to a self.

[HBJ 1.796b24, WSC 423]

如說 「依世間道乃至能離無所有處所有貪欲、於諸下地其煩惱心得解脫。而未能脫薩迦耶見。由此見故、於下上地所有諸行、和雜自體不觀差別、惣計爲我、或計爲我所。由是因緣、雖昇有頂而後退還。」 [T 1579.30.794c3–8.]故。

As [the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra] says:

From the mundane path up to the state of freedom from all desires in the stage of nothingness, 144 [796c] one is liberated from the craving and desire that lie within all the afflicted states of mind in the lower stages. Yet one is not free from the reifying view. Because of [attachment to] this view, in all of the activities engaged in within the lower and higher stages there is confusion regarding the self-essence and one does not [correctly] discriminate, assuming all things to be either “I” or “mine.” Because of this, even though one might ascend to the summit of material existence, 145 one still subsequently retrogresses. (T 1579.30.794c3–8)


According to these two implications, although one becomes free from the previously subjugated afflictions that are to be eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, at the time of death they are potent enough reappear. Because of this we can say that the afflictions that bind us to rebirth in the three realms are primarily the afflictions that are to be extirpated in the Path of Cultivation. [Those afflictions] that produce general-reward karma are primarily those eliminated in the Path of Seeing. Since these influence each other, they are said to share in the production [of karma] and the bringing about of rebirth.

[HBJ 1.796c9, WSC 426]

攝論 「若無下無明、諸行不生。若無修道無明、諸行不熟者。」 [T 1595.31.167b29–c1. According to T and K, there is again text missing here. The full text is as follows: 若無苦下無明、 諸行不生。若行已生無修道無明諸行不熟.] 是明分別我見相應無明、能發惣報引業。境界愛相應無明 [Where HBJ has four blank spaces followed by , WSC has 愛相. Based on the parallel structure of the prior sentence, along with the appearance of the term 境界愛 in the next sentence, this phrase should probably be 境界愛相應無明.] 能助 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s .]彼業、令成生業 。

As the *Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha-(bhāṣya) 146 says: “If there is no nescience within suffering, no practices will be initiated. [Even if practices are already initiated,] if there is no nescience in the Path of Cultivation, those practices will not have fruition.” 147 This clarifies the fact that the nescience that is associated with the discrimination of the view of self is able to produce the general-retribution/directive karma. Nescience that is concomitant with attachment to surrounding objects functions to support that [directive] karma, and to bring about the formation of particularizing karma.

佛性論云。 「福不動業增長家因者。思惟能成業。見諦{惑} [In the original context of this discussion in the Buddha Nature Treatise, the term being discussed is 見諦惑, and therefore we add here and in the below sentence for clarification.] 能得果者。」 [T 1610.31.806c29–7a1.]是明由境界愛增長引業、令成生業。故名成業。非能始發引業故、不言能發業。由我愛力業能得果、故言見諦{惑}能得果也。

The Treatise on Buddha-Nature 148 says: “Beneficial and non-propelling karmas aid in enhancing the causes of being born in the Buddha’s family. Thought enables the formation of karma; [delusion in regard to] seeing the truths allows one to experience the effects [of karma].” (T 1610.31.806c29–7a1) This clarifies the fact that attachment to the objects around one [at the moment of death] augments directive karma and brings about the formation of particularizing karma. Therefore the text says “formation of karma.” Because it is not able to initiate the production of directive karma, the text does not say “is able to produce [directive] karma.” Based on the karmic power of attachment to self, one is able to experience effects. Therefore it says “[because of delusion in regard to] seeing the truth(s) one is able to experience the effects [of karma].”

[HBJ 1.796c18, WSC 426]

彼論者、意境界愛等、迷五塵事、故名思惟。我愛是乖無我道理、故名見諦 [The character is omitted here.]。而是我愛非分別起、是故還爲修道所斷。由是道理故不相違。

According to that treatise, attachment to mental objects entails confusion regarding the five sense objects, and therefore this is called “thought.” Attachment to self runs contrary to the principle of selflessness; therefore it is called “[mental disturbance in regard to] seeing the truth.” Yet this attachment to self is not arisen from discrimination, and so therefore it is to be eliminated in the Path of Cultivation. With this kind of reasoning there is no contradiction.

[HBJ 1.796c23, WSC 428]


Furthermore, if we distinguish according to the type of person, all of the actively binding and latent afflictions of worldlings bring about rebirth. However, in the case of bodhisattvas, neither the actively binding hindrances nor the latent hindrances bring rebirth. [797a] The sages of two vehicles are different. Why? From a broader perspective, all those at the level of sage are reborn only due to the possession of latent afflictions. This is because at the time the sages undergo rebirth, there is no sexual attraction or aversion. From a narrower perspective, in the first two realizations of [the four realizations 149 of the Lesser Vehicle] sagehood, the innate attachment to self is also active. It is only at the level of the third realization (nonreturner) 150 that it does not produce rebirth. When one is reborn based solely on latencies, it is because birth with attachment to self obscures the sagely intention, and because of the gradual energizing of the uncontaminated path.

[HBJ 1.797a6, WSC 429]

瑜伽 「結生相續略有七種。一纏及隨眠結生相續、謂諸異生。二唯隨眠結生相續、謂見聖迹。三正知入胎、謂轉輪王。四正知入住、謂獨覺。五於一切位不失正念、謂諸菩薩。六業所引發結生相續、謂諸菩薩。七智力所發結生相續、謂諸菩薩」 [T 1579.30.629c20–26.]此說隨眠結生謂見聖迹、是約通相結生門說。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

There are in general, seven kinds of continuous rebirth: (1) continuous rebirth from both active and latent hindrances—this involves all worldlings; (2) continuous rebirth from latent hindrances only—this refers to those who have seen the traces of the holy path; (3) entering the womb with correct awareness—this refers to the wheel-turning kings; (4) entering into abiding with correct awareness—this refers to the pratyekabuddha; (5) not losing correct mindfulness in any situation—this refers to the bodhisattvas; (6) rebirth induced by karma—this refers to the bodhisattvas; (7) rebirth based on wisdom-power—this refers to the bodhisattvas. (T 1579.30.629c20–26)

When it says here that rebirth from the latent hindrances refers to those who have seen the traces of the holy path, this is based on the perspective of the broader interpretation of the causes of rebirth.

[HBJ 1.797a14, WSC 430]

對法論 「未離欲聖者亦爾 [T and K have 臨命終時 here.]乃至未至不明了想位、其中能起此愛 [T and K have 現行 here.]。然能了別、以對治力所損 [T and K have here, but seems to better fit the context.]伏故。已離欲聖者對治力強故、雖未永斷然、卽此愛不復現行。由隨眠力令生相續。」 [T 1606.31.714c7–11.]此約別相結生門也。

The *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

All [sages] who have not yet eliminated desire are like this. And even up to the stage of not yet having fully clarified their conceptualization, within this state they are still able to generate this attachment [to self]. Yet when they are able to discriminate clearly, it is because the power of their corrective practices can subdue [desire]. Since the power of their corrective practices of [the sages] who have eliminated desire is strong, even though they have not permanently eliminated it, this attachment never reactivates. It is due to the power of the latent hindrances that they continue to undergo rebirth. (T 1606.31.714c7–11)

This is from the perspective of the narrower interpretation of binding to rebirth.

[HBJ 1.797a19, WSC 432]

上來所說發業結生、是說六識所起煩惱。若論末那相應四惑、一切位中恒有現行、通能作本發業結生。如是發業結生之義、三種緣生門中、在愛非愛及與受 [This passage in the Compendium of the Great Vehicle in T and K has rather than , which seems more correct. See 1579.31.120c20.]用二緣生門。三種熏習之中、唯在有分及與我見熏習門。是謂煩惱障功能也。

The above discussion of karma-enabled rebirth explains the case of the afflictions generated by the sixth consciousness. As for the four afflictions associated with the manas, they are constantly active in all mental states, and thus serve pervasively as the basis for the generation of karma and rebirth. This kind of interpretation of production of karma and rebirth is equivalent to the two aspects among the three kinds of conditioned arising, 151 of rebirth through like and dislike, and receiving the body for enjoyment. Among the three kinds of perfuming, 152 this doctrine reflects only perfuming by distinction of one’s state of existence and perfuming by the view of self. This completes the explanation of the abilitys of the afflictive hindrances. The Cognitive Hindrances

[HBJ 1.797b1, WSC 433]

所知障者、於三界中無有發業結生功能。非迷四諦人空理故。然此別有二種功能。何等爲二。一者分別諸法自性差別、故能薰成十八界。由是辨生諸法體相。此是因緣之功能也。二 [In this passage in the Compendium of the Great Vehicle where this is taught, is .]種緣生中、自性緣生。三種熏習中、言說熏習。二者此所知障分別自他違順等相、能生見慢貪瞋等事。此是增上緣功能也。依顯了門釋障能竟。

[797b] The cognitive hindrances are not capable of producing karma or rebirth within the three realms. This is because [these hindrances] do not include delusion in regard to either the Four Truths or selflessness of person. Nonetheless, they have two distinctive kinds of capabilities. What are the two?

The first is the discrimination of distinct self-natures in all dharmas, which allows the ability to perfume and form the eighteen elements. Based on this, one discriminates and produces the essences of dharmas. This is the function of direct causation [from among the four kinds of causes] (hetu-pratyaya). Between the two kinds of causes of rebirth, it is the cause of self-nature. Among the three kinds of perfuming, it is the perfuming by verbal expressions. 153

The second is the cognitive hindrances’ discrimination of the marks of distinctions between self and other, the disagreeable and agreeable, etc., which is able to produce views, pride, craving, anger, and so forth. This is the function of causation by contingent factors (adhipati-pratyaya). 154 This concludes the explanation of the functions of the hindrances from the Explicit perspective.

2.3.2. The Capabilities of the Two Hindrances According to the Inexplicit Perspective

[HBJ 1.797b10, WSC 434]

隱密門內二礙能者、此中亦有發業結生。言發業者、無明住地發無漏業能受界外變易生死。此是無作四諦道理。如前所 [WSC adds here.]說顯了門者、直是有作四諦門也。

The inexplicit perspective of the functions of the two kinds of obstructions also includes the dimensions of generation of karma and continuation of rebirth. Generation of Karma

In this context, “generation of karma” means that the uncontaminated karma produced by entrenched 155 nescience causes one to undergo miraculous birth-and-death beyond the [three] realms. 156 This is the principle of the Four Unconstructed Truths. 157 It is like the above explanation from the Explicit perspective, which is done from the perspective of the Four Constructed Truths.

[HBJ 1.797b14, WSC 434]

夫人經言。 「又如四 [T and K do not have here.]取緣有漏業因而生三有。如是無明住地緣無漏業因、生阿羅漢、辟支佛、大力菩薩三種意生身。」 [T 353.12.220a16–18.]故。

As the Śrīmālā-sūtra says:

As it is by grasping the causes of contaminated karma that [sentient beings] are born in the three realms. The entrenchment of nescience, linking up with non-contaminated karma, produces the three kinds of mind-made bodies of the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas. 158

總說、雖然於中分別者、此中所發無漏業者、方便道中道分善根不爲三漏所發所潤、不受 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s .]三有。故名無漏。

Generally speaking, although they are differentiated in this context, the uncontaminated karmas produced here, being the roots of goodness of the supramundane aspect of the Path of Skillful Means, are neither produced by nor nourished by the three kinds of contamination, 159 and do not produce birth in the three realms. Therefore they are called “uncontaminated.”

[HBJ 1.797b20, WSC 436]

當知集諦有其二種、謂有漏集諦無漏集諦。所生苦諦亦有二種。謂有爲苦諦無爲苦諦。如寶性論 「何名爲世間。 以三界相似鏡像法故。此明何義。依無漏{法}界中有三種意生身、應知彼因 [Here, I use as found in T and K instead of in HBJ.]無漏善根所作名爲世間。以離有漏諸業煩惱所作法、故亦名涅槃。依此義故勝鬘經言。 「有有爲世間、有無爲世間。有有爲涅槃、有無爲涅槃。」 [The citation from the Ratnagotravibhāga is from T 1611.31.834b25–c1 and the citation from the Śrīmālā-sūtra is from T 353.12.221b25–26. This citation of the Śrīmālā Sutra contained in this form within the Ratnagotravibhāga, and apparently that is the way Wonhyo is citing it.]

It should be understood that the Truth of Arising has the two aspects of contaminated and uncontaminated. The Truth of Suffering that is produced also has two aspects: they are called the conditioned Truth of Suffering and the unconditioned Truth of Suffering. As the Ratnagotravibhāga says:

[797c] Why is it called “mundane world”? Because the marks of the three realms resemble the visible phenomena reflected in a mirror. What does this clarify? Within the uncontaminated [dharma-]realm are the three kinds of mind-made bodies, and that which is called “mundane world” is something created based on uncontaminated wholesome roots. When there is freedom from states produced by contaminated afflictive activities, it is also called “nirvāṇa.” In the same vein, the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “there is the conditioned mundane world and there is unconditioned mundane world; there is conditioned nirvāṇa and there is unconditioned nirvāṇa.” 160

[HBJ 1.797c4, WSC 437]


There are also two kinds of generation of karma. One is the generation of directive karma from the entrenchment of nescience. The second is the generation of particularizing karma from the habit energies of thirst and grasping. The reason that the entrenchment of nescience is able to produce directive-saṃsāric karma is because it implies a lack of awareness that the nature of the mind is originally quiescent and forever changeless. Based on this impetus, practitioners are capable of producing the arising-and-ceasing of mind-made bodies and the karma of miraculous birth-and-death.


Bodhisattvas in the Path of Seeing permanently free themselves from subjectivity and objectivity, and according to their abilities actualize the original motionlessness [of the mind’s nature]. Therefore, even though they still have nescience, this nescience does not form the karma that leads to rebirth. Because of this power, in the subsequent Path of Skillful Means and so forth, they should not produce the karma that leads to generic retribution. It is like the case of the adherents of the two vehicles who have completed their Path of Seeing. Even though they still possess the nescience of the innate view of self, this does not result in the formation of the karma of generic retribution. You should understand the principle being expressed here in the same way.

[HBJ 1.797c13, WSC 438]


Why is it that the habit energies of attachment to person and the discriminations of attachment to dharmas are not capable of producing uncontaminated karma? There is no case within the purview of the three vehicles where this does not hold true. However, when these bodhisattvas are in their Path of Skillful Means, they cultivate uncontaminated karma as an antidote. Since there is a conflict between the hindrances and their correction, this karma cannot be generated. 161 For example, it is like the case of a person in the desire realm who, because of attachment to self and so forth, is not capable of producing non-propelling karma due to the conflict between the hindrances and their antidotes. It is the same here. Therefore, the entrenchment of nescience is not something that can be subdued by karmically uncontaminated [practices], and thus [this nescience] is able to produce karma. Since this [entrenched] nescience pervasively produces the uncontaminated directive karma of the three vehicles, we simply say here that it generates karma. 162

[HBJ 1.797c22, WSC 440]

發生業時、唯能閏發能取種子、令成能與。非發現起無漏之業。由是義故、愛取習氣、妄想分別、能發生業。如智度論說。 「阿毘跋致菩薩習氣力故、受法性生身。」 [T 1509.25.371a28.]是顯發生業義。

When particularizing karma is generated, its function is limited to the nourishment and appropriation of seeds, causing them to form and emerge. It does not produce manifestly active uncontaminated karma. [798a] Based on this interpretation, habit energies from thirst and grasping, as well as deluded conceptualization are able to produce particularizing karma. As the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra says: “Due to the power of their habit energies, the nonretrogressive bodhisattvas are born with the body of the dharma-nature.” (T 1509.25.371a28) This illustrates the meaning of the production of particularizing karma.

寶性論云。 「緣相者、謂無明住地與行作緣。如無明緣行、此亦如是。」 [T 1611.31.830b3–5]故。此明發引業義。又、彼論云。 「緣 [T and K have instead of .]彼無明住地、緣 [T and K have here after .]細想 [T and K have , but seems correct here.]戲論習因無漏業生於意陰。」 [Correcting to , according to apparent rectitude of the source text. T 1611.31.830b15–18. Wonhyo skips over a considerable amount of text here. The full passage reads: 依彼無明住地 緣以細相戲論習 未得永滅 是故未得究竟無爲我波羅蜜又即頗彼無明住地有細相戲論集因無漏業生.]是文倶顯二種支業。

The Ratnagotravibhāga says: “‘Marks of conditions’ 163 means that the entrenchment of nescience creates conditions when it moves. It is the same as nescience serving as condition for impulse [as the first and second of the twelve links of dependent arising].” (T 1611.31.830b3–5) This explains the meaning of directive karma. That treatise also says: “Conditioned by the entrenchment of nescience and conditioned by subtle forms of conceptual elaboration (prapañca), uncontaminated karma is produced in the mental aggregate.” [T 1611.31.830b15–18. Wonhyo skips over a considerable amount of text here. ] These passages fully explain the two branches of karma [of particularizing and directive]. The Ability to Bring About Continuance of Rebirth

[HBJ 1.798a7, WSC 442]


Next is the clarification of the ability to bring about continuance of rebirth. When arhats and pratyekabuddhas undergo birth, there are habit energies of attachment to self, and within these there is rebirth as well as the production of particularizing karma. These are [included in] the function of the afflictive obstructions, as they all abide within the six kinds of defiled [mind]. The production of directive karma comes from the influence of the cognitive obstructions, as the entrenchment of nescience is not one of the six kinds of defiled mind. Furthermore, these cognitive obstructions have two kinds of special capabilities:

一、此無明動眞 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s .]如流轉生死。如經言。 「卽此法界說名衆生。」 [T 668.16.467c11–12.] 云。「自性淸淨心因無明風動」 [T 1666.32.576c14.]故。

(1) Nescience propels thusness into cyclic existence. As the Sutra [of Neither Increase nor Decrease] 164 says: “This realm of existence is called sentient beings.” (T 668.16.467c11–12) The Treatise [on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith] says: “the essentially pure mind moves due to the wind of nescience.” (T 1666.32.576c14)

二、此無明能薰眞如、變生一切諸識等法。如經言。 「不思議薰、不思議變、是現識因。」 [T 670.16.473a19–20.] 云。 「眞如淨法實無於染。但以無明而熏習故、卽有染相故。」 [T 1666.32.578a19–20]

(2) Nescience is able to impregnate thusness, generating all dharmas such as the consciousnesses and so forth. As the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra says: “Inconceivable impregnation and inconceivable transformation are the causes of the manifest consciousness.” (T 670.16.473a19–20) The Treatise [on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith] says: “The pure state of thusness essentially lacks defilement. It is only because of perfuming by nescience that it takes on the marks of defilement.” (T 1666.32.578a19–20)

[HBJ 1.798a17, WSC 443]

由有如是二種力故、能作二種生死依止。如經言。 「此三地、彼三種意生身生、及無漏業生、皆依無明住地。有緣非無緣。」 [T 353.12.220a18–19.]故。當知無明其力殊勝。如偈中說。 「一切 [HBJ has here.]諸法中 槃若最爲勝。能至無所爲 而無所 [WSC adds here.]不爲、而無不爲故。一切生死中、無明力最大。能動一法界遍生三生死。」 [Citation not located.]故。上來二門明障功能竟。

Due to these two kinds of forces, one creates two kinds of bases for cyclic existence. As the [Śrīmālā-] sūtra says: “The generation of these three stages, those three kinds of mind-made bodies, as well as uncontaminated karma—all depend on the entrenchment of nescience. They all are contingent upon it, and there are none that are not contingent upon it.” (T 353.12.220a18–19) Therefore you should know that the power of nescience is especially predominant. As a verse says: “Among all mental factors wisdom is the most excellent. It attains the state of nonaccomplishment, yet there is nothing that it does not accomplish, because there is nothing that it cannot do. Within cyclic existence, it is the power of nescience that is the greatest. It is able to quicken the single realm of existence such that it pervasively gives rise to the three [realms of] birth and death.” 165

[798b] The above two sections have explained the capabilities of the hindrances.

2.4. The Categories of the Hindrances

[HBJ 1.798b2, WSC 445]


The next is the fourth section, which details the various categories of the mental disturbances—and there are indeed many. Here we will summarize them into six groups: (1) the 128 afflictions; (2) the 104 afflictions; (3) the ninety-eight declivities; (4) the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization; (5) the three kinds of afflictions, and (6) the two kinds of afflictions.

2.4.1. The 128 Afflictions

[HBJ 1.798b6, WSC 446]

初言一百二十八煩惱者。謂迷四諦分別起通取三界有百二十八種。如瑜伽論本地分說。 「於欲界苦集諦及彼欲界增上滅道諦、具有十種煩惱迷執。於色界苦集諦及彼增上滅道諦、除瞋有餘。如於色界無色界亦爾。於欲界對治修中、有六 [Here Taishō adds 煩惱]迷執。除邪見、見取、戒禁取、疑。色無色界 [Here, instead of 無色界, Taishō has 對治修中.]有五 [Here Taishō adds 煩惱]迷執、於上六中各除瞋。」 [T 1579.30.313b21–28; abridged.]故。

First, what are the 128 afflictions? This term refers to the 128 types of grasping throughout the three realms, based on the discriminations that arise due to delusion in regard to the Four Truths. As the Original Section of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

In connection with the noble truths of suffering and arising in the desire realm, as well as the truths of cessation and the path of the desire realm that overcome the former, there are ten kinds of afflictions of deluded attachment. In connection with the noble truths of suffering and arising in the form realm, as well as the truths of cessation and the path in the form realm that overcome the former, there is the same set of afflictions, excluding hatred. The case is the same in the formless realm as it is in the form realm. There are six kinds of confusions related to deluded attachment that are dealt with in the corrective practices in the desire realm—[which are the same set of ten,] minus wrong view, attachment to views, attachment to discipline, and doubt. 166 In the form and formless realms there are five kinds of deluded attachment, which are the same as the prior six, excluding hatred. 167

[HBJ 1.798b14, WSC 447]

此十煩惱於四諦境、云何各別。起迷執者、隨其根本有四別故。是義云何。此十煩惱總有三分、謂倒本、倒體、及倒等流。倒根本者、所謂無明。倒體者、謂薩迦耶見、邊見一分、見取、戒 [Following WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]取及貪。言倒等流者、除前之餘。

How are these ten afflictions distinguished within the realms of the Four Truths? The deluded attachments that arise are distinguished into four according to their origin. What does this mean? These ten afflictions have three general types, which are (1) confusion in regard to the fundament, (2) confusion of reification, and (3) confusion in regard to the continuity of sameness. Confusion in regard to the fundament refers to nescience. Confusion of reification refers to the view of a self, one aspect of extreme views (either nihilism or eternalism), the view of attachment to views, as well as attachment to discipline, and greed. The confusion in regard to the continuity of sameness accounts for the remaining afflictions. 168

[HBJ 1.798b19, WSC 449]

倒本無明 「亦有二種、謂相應及獨行。獨行無明者、謂無貪等諸煩惱纏。但於苦等諸諦境中、由不如理作意力故、鈍慧士夫補特伽羅諸不如實簡擇、覆障闇昧心法。如是名爲獨行無明。」 [T 1579.30.622a10–17.]

Nescience as confusion in regard to the fundament also has two kinds, which are called “concomitant” and “independently functioning.” 169

Independently functioning nescience is a form of nescience that is not bound to desire and the other afflictions. It is just that due to the influence of incorrect contemplation of the objects of the [four] truths of suffering and so forth, there are some persons of dull intelligence whose thinking is incorrect and who therefore draw mistaken conclusions, which obscure mental functioning. [798c] This is called independently functioning nescience. 170

[HBJ 1.798c2, WSC 451]


If, within [this state], one investigates the Truth of Suffering with incorrect contemplation, then inaccurate awareness darkens and obscures [cognitive function]. Based on this nescience, one imagines a perceiver and so forth, and following this, one gives rise to the view of self, with its attendant delusions. In this way these ten [afflictions] are all confused in regard to the Truth of Suffering.


If one investigates, but fails to accurately understand the Truth of Arising, and based on this [incorrect perception], imagines an actor and so forth, then these ten [afflictions] are all confused in regard to the truth of arising. Because these two are directly confused in regard to the basis of causation, one does not give rise to fear regarding the Truths of Cessation and the Path.

又、若由不如理作意、推求滅諦不如實知、依此無明、計淸淨我。以此爲先具起餘惑。如是十種悉迷滅諦。若 [According to the structure of the prior sections of this passage, it should again start here with the character .]推求道 [ is added here according to the suggestion in the notes of the HBJ, as it seems to fit correctly.]諦、不如實知 [According the structure of the prior part of this section, the text should probably have the character after here.] 依此卽計知者見者、此等十種是迷道諦。

Again, suppose, based on incorrect contemplation, one investigates the Truth of Cessation and misunderstands it, and then based on this nescience, imagines a pure self. With this as a starting point, the other delusions arise in concert. In this case the ten [afflictions] all contain confusion in regard to the Truth of Cessation. If one investigates the Truth of the Path and misunderstands it, and based on this [nescience] imagines a knower and a seer, then these ten kinds [of affliction] all contain confusion in regard to the Truth of the Path.

[HBJ 1.798c9, WSC 451]

此二無明所起煩惱、還於滅道生怖畏想。如其本不推求諦理、直緣五蘊而計我等。如是一切皆迷苦諦。由是義故於四諦下、各有十種煩惱迷執。如瑜伽說。 「卽此一切迷苦集 [HBJ has instead of . Taishō has 集諦.]者、是迷彼因緣所依處行。卽此一切迷滅道者、是迷彼怖畏生行。」 [T 1579.30.627c5–7]

The afflictions produced by these two kinds of nescience eventually generate thoughts of fear regarding the Truths of Cessation and the Path. This is because one originally fails to investigate the principle of the [Four] Truths, and directly imagines a self and so forth based on the five aggregates. In this way, all [these afflictions] are based in confusion in regard to the Truth of Suffering. Therefore, each of the Four Truths has ten afflictions of mistaken attachment associated with it. As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

All of the mistakes in regard to the Truths of Suffering and Arising operate based on the mistakes in regard to the grounds of their causes and conditions. All the mistakes in regard to the Truths of Cessation and the Path operate due to the mistake of fearing them. (T 1579.30.627c5–7)

[HBJ 1.798c15, WSC 453]

對法論云。 「又、十煩惱皆迷苦集、起諸邪行。是彼因緣所依處故。所以者何。苦集二諦、皆是十種煩惱因緣及所依處。是故一切迷此因緣依處、起諸邪行。又、十煩惱皆迷滅道、起諸邪行。由此能生彼怖畏故。所以者何。由煩惱力、樂着生死、於淸淨法起懸岸想、生大怖畏。又、諸外道於滅道諦妄起種種顚倒分別。是故十惑皆迷滅道、起諸邪行。」 [T 1606.31.736a1–8.]若迷此起邪行、卽見此所斷故。

The *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

Furthermore, the ten afflictions are all based in confusion regarding the truths of Suffering and Arising, and thus give rise to evil activities. This is because [suffering and the arising of suffering] are their causal ground. Why is this? The two truths of Suffering and Arising are the causes and conditions, and are the grounds for the ten kinds of afflictions. Therefore all contain confusion in regard to their causal grounds, and give rise to various evil actions. Furthermore, the ten afflictions all contain confusion in regard to the truths of Cessation and the Path, and thus give rise to various evil actions. Because of this, [sentient beings] have apprehension regarding these [two truths]. Why so? Due to the power of the afflictions, one enjoys and becomes attached to cyclic existence, and generates great fear regarding pure states as if he were standing at the edge of a precipice. Furthermore, all non-Buddhists deludedly give rise to all kinds of distorted notions in regard to the truths of Cessation and the Path. Therefore these ten delusions, all contain confusion in regard to the truths of Cessation and the Path, and give rise to all kinds of evil actions. (T 1606.31.736a1–8)

If confusion in regard to this [truth] gives rise to evil actions, then it is in seeing it that they will be eliminated.

[HBJ 1.799a1, WSC 455]

又、若由不如理作意、推求眞如佛性等理、不如實知、卽謗大乘。如是邪見、是分別起、成 [HBJ has with the alternative of , WSC has , which works best.]無間苦、而非正迷安立四諦。而不可說二乘不斷墮惡趣因、無餘斷故。所以能斷此邪見者、二乘無漏諦現觀智、亦觀非安立諦境故。故此邪見相從入於迷四諦攝。以四諦門空無我理、與其佛性無二別故、必由我見謗大乘故。

[799a] Furthermore, one who investigates such principles as thusness, buddha-nature and so forth based on incorrect contemplation, and thus wrongly apprehends them, denies the Great Vehicle. Such wrong views, produced from discrimination, cause incessant suffering, even though one does not directly err in regard to the established Four Truths. Yet you cannot say that the adherents of the two vehicles fail to stem the causes of falling into evil rebirths, since they eliminate these causes without remainder. They are able to eliminate these erroneous views because they use the discernment of the contemplation of the uncontaminated truths of the two vehicles, and they also contemplate the truths as nonposited objects. Therefore these erroneous views are included together with the confusion in regard to the Four Truths. Since the principles of emptiness and selflessness contained within the Four Truths are not different from the buddha-nature, to entertain a view of a self is to deny the Great Vehicle.

[HBJ 1.799a10, WSC 456]

又、此門中所以二見亦有倶 [The HBJ has here, obviously wrong.]生。三見 [The HBJ has 二見 here.]及疑唯分別起者。以彼二見內計自體恒時數習、是故亦有任運現行。三見及疑推求道理不如實知、不正計度非數數起、故無倶生。雖於諸事任運起疑、不染汚故、非惑性攝。故修斷惑唯有六種、此等皆說六識所起。若論末那相應四惑、相從通入修斷四中。是謂一百二十八煩惱也。

Furthermore, the two views (view of self and extreme views) under discussion here are also innate. The [remaining] three views (evil view, view of attachment to views, and view of attachment to discipline) along with doubt are arisen only through discrimination. Since the [first] two views internally impute a self-essence and constantly habituate this imputation, they also activate spontaneously. The [remaining] three views and doubt, inaccurate cognition in the investigation of reality, and incorrect imputations are not continuously habituated, and therefore they are not innate. And even though one may spontaneously give rise to doubts in various situations, since these are not defiling, they are not considered to be afflictive in nature. Therefore there are only six types of affliction eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, and these are all understood to be engendered by the six consciousnesses. If we discuss the four kinds of mental disturbances that are associated with the manas, then these are all included with the four that are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation. This concludes the explanation of the 128 afflictions.

2.4.2. The 104 Afflictions

[HBJ 1.799a18, WSC 458]

次明一百四煩惱者。見道所斷有九十四、修斷有十、合爲百四。如瑜伽論決擇分說。 「云何建立迷斷差別。欲界迷苦有十煩惱。迷餘三諦各有八種、除薩迦耶及邊執見。上界除瞋餘如欲界。」 [T 1579.30.623a10–15.] 「修所斷者、欲界瞋恚、三界三種貪、慢、無明。」 [T 1579.30.623c3–4.]故。

Next I will explain the 104 afflictions. Ninety-four of these are eliminated in the Path of Seeing and the remaining ten are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, totaling 104. As the “Section on Ascertainment” in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

How do we distinguish types of confusion along with their elimination? The confusions in regard to the Truth of Suffering within the desire realm include the ten afflictions. The confusions in regard to the remaining three truths consist of eight kinds of affliction apiece, [that is, the ten basic afflictions,] minus the view of entities and the view of attachment to extremes. The afflictions in the upper [two] realms (form realm and formless realm) are the same as those in the desire realm, with the exception of anger, (T 1579.30.623a10–15) ... Eliminated in the Path of Cultivation are the anger of the desire realm and the three afflictions of greed, pride, and nescience in all three realms. (T 1579.30.623c3–4)

所以身邊二見但迷苦諦者、由於此中對治說迷故。是義云何。如是二見、正返苦下無我無常二種行相故。餘三門所起二見、皆迷苦諦而起邪行。其餘諸惑無如是義、是故於彼託 [HBJ has instead of WSC’s .]境說迷。所以修斷無二見者、得見道後、起此者少。故於此門略而不說。末那三惑雖有名同、亦不入於修斷三中。是名一百四種煩惱。

[799b] The reason that the two views of [attachment to] extremes and view of entities are mistaken only in regard to the Truth of Suffering, is because correction of them that is undertaken in this context is said to be mistaken. Why is it understood like this? Because these two views directly controvert the two defining activities of the Truth of Suffering—no-self and impermanence. When these two views appear in the context of the remaining three truths, all give rise to unwholesome activities based on the delusions arisen in regard to the Truth of Suffering. Since the remaining afflictions do not operate in this way, they are said to be deluded in their apprehension of objects. The reason why these two views are not part of the afflictions that are removed in the Path of Cultivation is because once one has attained of the Path of Seeing, one rarely generates these views. Therefore I just mention them in passing here. Even though the three delusions in the manas consciousness have the same name, they are not included with the three that are removed in the Path of Cultivation. This concludes the explanation of the 104 afflictions.

2.4.3. The Ninety-Eight Declivities

[HBJ 1.799b8, WSC 461]


Third is the explanation of the ninety-eight declivities. Eighty-eight of these are eliminated in the Path of Seeing and ten are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, totaling ninety-eight. Among the eighty-eight, within the desire realm there are ten included under the Truth of Suffering and eight under the Truth of the Path—that is, all except the two views. The remaining two truths each include seven—that is, all except the two views and the view of attachment to discipline. Within the two higher realms each of these categories also lacks hatred, and the rest are the same as those in the desire realm. The ten that are removed in the Path of Cultivation do not differ from those in the prior explanation [of the 104 afflictions].

十住毘婆沙論 「使所攝名煩惱、纏所攝名爲垢。使所攝者是十根本。隨三界見諦思惟所斷分別、故名九十八使。非使所攝者謂不信等。亦以三界見諦思惟所斷分別有一百九十六種纏垢。」 [T 1521.26.108b28c6]故。

As the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā 171 says:

Those that are included in the declivities are called “afflictions” and those that are included in the tethers are called “impurities.” Included among the declivities are the ten basic afflictions. They are discriminations that are eliminated according to contemplative insight into the truths in the three realms—therefore they are called the ninety-eight declivities. Those that are not subsumed under the declivities are lack of faith and so forth. Also, included among the discriminations that are eliminated according to contemplative insight into the truths within the three realms there are 196 kinds of tethers and impurities. (T 1521.26.108b28–c6)


The afflictions explained in this category have the view of self as their basis. It is due to harboring the view of self that one persistently denies the Four Truths. Based upon the four mistaken views, one gives rise to the other afflictions according to the situation. Therefore in connection with the Four Truths one mistakenly attaches to distinctions.

[HBJ 1.799b21, WSC 463]

廣論云。 「以有我見故言無諦。彼作是言我無有苦、卽是謗苦。我無有因 [All other sources have instead of HBJ’s , which is clearly incorrect here.]、卽是謗集。我無有滅、卽謗滅諦。我無有對治、卽謗道諦故。」

As the Guang lun says:

Due to the view of the existence of the self, one denies the Truths. When one says that the self lacks suffering, one denies the Truth of Suffering. When one says that the self is uncaused, one denies the Truth of Arising. [799c] When one says that the self has no cessation, one denies the Truth of Cessation. When one says that there are no antidotes to the [afflictions affecting the] self, one denies the Truth of the Path. 172

此門意說、凡諸我見、必緣現在自體五蘊。是故無不迷苦諦者。其邊 [Here using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]執見緣所存我計其斷常。故亦迷苦。是故此二不通三諦。

The point of this approach is to explain that in all cases the view of a self occurs where one takes the five aggregates as a self-essence (ātma-bhāva). Therefore there is no [case where the view of self] is not confused in regard to the Truth of Suffering. Extreme views depend on this reified self, imagining either its absolute nonexistence or its permanence. Hence, extreme views are also confused in regard to the Truth of Suffering. Therefore these two views do not pervade the [remaining] three truths.

所以戒取唯迷苦道者、凡論戒取不出二種。一獨頭戒取、緣邪戒事計爲因等。二足上戒取、緣自邪見計爲道等。獨頭戒取、是緣苦集。而於集諦、非正相反 [Here using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s.]於因計因故。若望苦諦、卽爲正反 [Here using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s.]於果計因故。是故但爲見苦所斷。足上戒取唯緣道下、謗道邪見計以爲道。於餘邪見不計爲道。

The reason that attachment to [wrong] discipline 173 is deluded only in regard to the truths of Suffering and the Path is because when it comes to attachment to [wrong] discipline, there are but two kinds. The first is the attachment to discipline as an independent means to liberation—which is the error of relying solely upon mistaken (non-Buddhist) discipline as the cause [for liberation]. The second is the attachment to perverted discipline, wherein one regards one’s own erroneous views to be the path and so forth. The attachment to discipline as an independent means to liberation is takes the truths of Suffering and Arising as its referent. Yet in regard to the Truth of Arising it does not directly controvert its principles, since it at least understands causation as causation. But in terms of the Truth of Suffering, it directly controverts its principles, since it confuses causes with effects. Therefore this attachment is eliminated merely through insight into the Truth of Suffering. The attachment to perverted discipline takes as its referent only the Truth of the Path, as evil views that deny the path are misconstrued to be the path. The remaining evil views are not misconstrued to be the path.

[HBJ 1.799c12, WSC 467]


Why is this so? It is based on the intention to attain enlightenment that one gives rise to views that deny the path. 174 When one seeks and has some attainment with these views one further misconstrues them as the path. The denying of the remaining three truths is, on the other hand, not based on one’s seeking of the path, and therefore those views are not construed to be the path. Hence the attachment to [wrong] discipline does not extend to the truths of Arising and Cessation. The reason that the two innate views are not considered to be eliminated in the Path of Cultivation is because in comparison to the faults of desire, ill-will and so forth, they are extremely subtle. Therefore they are not technically defined as afflictions [in the narrow sense]. Rather, they are considered to be part of the mistaken cognition that is eliminated in the Path of Cultivation. This concludes the explanation of the ninety-eight declivities.

The above three categories discuss the afflictive hindrances as they are understood from the explicit perspective. However, each of these three ways of categorizing only treat the distinctions in mistaken activity and deluded attachment from a certain kind of approach. This is not a set formula that can be applied universally.

2.4.4. The Eight Kinds of Deluded Conceptualization

[HBJ 1.799c20, WSC 468]

四明八妄想者、亦名八種分別。如顯揚論云。 「頌曰。 分別有八種 能生於三事。 [In the line of this text just prior to where Wonhyo begins his citation, the “three circumstances” are defined as (1) the circumstances that are the perceptual referents for conceptual elaborations 分別戲論所依緣事; (2) the circumstances self-view and pride 見我慢事, and (3) the circumstances of greed and so forth 貪愛等事.] 分別體應知 三界心心法。

Fourth is an explanation of the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization, which are also known as the eight kinds of discrimination. As the Xianyang lun says:

The verse says:

There are eight kinds of discrimination

That are able to produce the three circumstances. 175

[800a] You should understand that this discrimination

Is constituted by...the mind and mental factors of the three worlds. (T 1602.31.558b11-13)

論曰。八種分別者。一自性分別。謂於色等想事、分別色等所有自性。二差別分別者。謂卽於色等想事起諸分別。謂此有色、此無色、有見、無見、等。以自性分別爲依處故、分別種種差別之義。三總執 [HBJ offers the alternative of for , but the meaning is basically the same.]分別。謂卽於色等總事所立我及有情、命者、生者、等、假想施說所引分別。由攝積聚多法總執爲因 [T and WSC have instead of HBJ’s.]分別轉故。又、於舍、軍、林、等想事。所立舍等假想施設所引尋思。

The commentary says:

The eight kinds of discrimination are:

(1) The discrimination of intrinsic nature. This means that when one perceives phenomena such as form and so forth, one discriminates them as having inherent nature.

(2) The discrimination of distinctions. This means that one discriminates notions of phenomena such as form and so forth, saying this one has form, this one is formless, that they are visible, invisible, etc. With the imputation of intrinsic nature as the basis, one discriminates a variety of distinctions.

(3) The discrimination of conglomerations. This refers to the reifications of self, sentient being, life span and being that are established based on the composite phenomena of form and so forth, designated through metaphorical verbal and conceptual discriminations. Based on the compounding of clusters of phenomena, one takes them as a basis and generates discriminations. Also, with regard to the notions of phenomena such as “house,” “army,” or “forest,” and so forth: “house” and so forth are elements of discursive thought derived from nominal designations.


(4) The discrimination of an “I.” This refers to the situation where there is contamination and attachment to phenomena, which becomes habituated over a long period of time, such that “I” becomes a reified object of attachment. It is a false discrimination that takes as referent the entity seen through repeated habituation of the subjective view.

(5) The discrimination of “mine.” This discrimination arises based on appropriation of events as well as appropriation of the objects of self that are adhered to.

(6) The discrimination of that which is attractive. It is the discrimination that occurs through perception of substances that are pure and attractive.

(7) The discrimination of the unattractive.

(8) The discrimination of the mutual distinction between the attractive and the unattractive.

[HBJ 1.800a15, WSC 471]

 如是略說有三 [“Two” as found in the HBJ and WSC is changed to “three” to agree both with the source text and the thread of the current discussion. These three are the same as indicated in the note just above.]種。謂分別自體及分別所依所緣事。此中初三分別、能生分別戲論所依所緣事。我、我所分別、能生餘見根本身見、餘慢根本我慢。愛、不愛倶相違、如其所應生貪瞋癡。是故如是八種分別爲起此三種事。  [T 1602.31.558b10–c13, abridged.] 論說如是。此中前三分別能生所依所緣事者、是明薰成名言種子。由是辨生十二處法。

These [eight] discriminations can be divided into three 176 broader categories, which are the discrimination of inherent essences, the discrimination of bases, and of cognitive referents. The first three discriminations function to create bases and the referential phenomena for conceptual elaborations. The discriminations of “I” and “mine,” function to produce the view of self that is the basis for the rest of the [mistaken] views, and the conceit “I am,” which is the basis for the other manifestations of pride. The [discrimination of] the attractive, the unattractive, and their contrast give rise to their derivatives of greed, hatred and delusion. Therefore these eight kinds of discrimination are the source of these three kinds of circumstances. (T 1602.31.558b10–c13, abridged)

The commentary explains it thus. The fact of the first three kinds of discrimination functioning to give rise to the phenomena of bases and referents clarifies the perfuming of the seeds of verbal expression. From this, the phenomena of the twelve sense fields are proliferated.

[HBJ 1.800a23, WSC 473]

瑜伽 「此中所說略有二種。一分別自性。二分別所依、分別所緣事。如是二事 [Taishō has instead of , but I have retained the original character.]無始世來展轉爲因。謂過去世分別爲因、能生現在分別、所依、及所緣事。現在依緣旣得生已、復能爲因、生現在世。由彼依緣所起分別、於今分別不了知故、復生當來所依緣事。彼當生故、依彼緣彼復起分別。」 [T 1579.30.490a23–b1, abridged.]

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

[The discriminations] explained here can be summarized as two types. [800b] One is the discrimination of intrinsic natures. The second is the discrimination of bases and referential phenomena. These two kinds of phenomena have served as mutual causes since the beginningless past. This means that the past discriminations serve as the cause, giving rise to the present discriminations, bases, and referential phenomena. Once the bases and the referents in the present have arisen, they are in turn able to function as causes to produce the present world. Since the discriminations arisen by those bases and referents are not something of which the present discrimination is sufficiently aware, they again produce the circumstances that are the bases and referents of the future. As that future comes to pass, those bases and referents again produce discriminations. (T 1579.30.490a23–b1, abridged)

[HBJ 1.800b7, WSC 474]

此言所依、謂內六處。言所緣者、是外六處。此明總攝十八界法、三種分別重習 [Reading 重習 as 薫習.]所生。此中前二分別其相可解。第三中言我、有情等所引分別者、此非我見計爲實我。直是慢緣世流布名、取其總相起諸分別。是故不入煩惱障攝。

Referred to here as “bases”, are the six internal sense bases; 177 the “referents” are the six external bases. 178 This shows how all of the eighteen elements of cognition are the products of the perfuming of the [first] three kinds of discrimination. Among these, the characteristics of the first two kinds of discrimination are readily understandable. As for the discriminations such as “I,” “sentient being,” etc., of the third type (conglomerations), these are not the same as the [commonly understood] situation where the view of a true self is imputed based on self-view. From this, one’s conceit apprehends accepted conventional terminology, and appropriating clustered characteristics, discriminates variously. Therefore [this type of discrimination] is not included within the afflictive hindrances.

[HBJ 1.800b12, WSC 476]


Furthermore, these [first] three kinds of discrimination include all of the cognitive hindrances. When internal discriminations are exhausted, it is because one is free from these three aspects of discrimination, so that there is no longer any external thing to discriminate. However, in order to further illustrate that the cognitive hindrances function as the contributory factors for the production of the afflictive hindrances [the commentary] appropriately establishes the remaining five [kinds of discrimination] based on the three kinds of generic discrimination. It is like the case where the four kinds of self-view of the afflictive hindrances [ultimately end up being the contributory factors] that bring about all types of affliction, including both discriminated and innate. However, in order to further illustrate the meaning of the conceit “I am”, [the commentary] separately establishes the two contingent types of self-view—of self and other, from the perspective of these two types of self-view. One should know that the principle being explained here is the same.

[HBJ 1.800b20, WSC 477]


What are the characteristics of the afflicted phenomena produced from the five [subsequent] kinds of discrimination? It is just like the auditory consciousness, which hears the sound of a self. Based upon this, the manovijñāna arises, seeking the name of this self. In the third moment of the mind, one conclusively determines the name of this self to be different from other things, and so it is at this third moment of the mind that there is discrimination of an “I.” Right after the third moment of mind one produces the defiled thought that does further speculative discrimination, assuming “I” to be unitary or eternal, to be actor, desirer, etc. After this, this “I” generates conceit and so forth. [800c] This process occurs with the other sense consciousnesses the same way as it does with the auditory consciousness.

[HBJ 1.800c2, WSC 477如我分別我所亦爾。此謂依二分別、生見慢事。愛分別者、且如眼識緣淨妙色、次意識生尋求妙相。第三心位定知是妙便起樂受而未生貪。此三心位名愛分別。決定心後方起染愛、後二分別生瞋癡事。如其所應准 [HBJ’s is corrected to .]此可解。]

The discrimination of “mine” functions like the discrimination of “I.” This means that depending on these two kinds of discrimination, one produces phenomena such as views and pride. The discrimination of the attractive can be seen in the case where the visual consciousness makes a connection with pure and beautiful form, and then the manovijñāna arises, seeking after the subtler features. At the third mental moment one has certain knowledge of this beauty and forthwith senses pleasure, but does not yet give rise to craving. This third mental moment is called the discrimination of the attractive. Only after the moment of ascertainment does one give rise to defiled attraction, and the two subsequent forms of discrimination produce hatred and delusion. From this, the function [regarding the other sense consciousnesses] is can be understood.

[HBJ 1.800c8, WSC 479]


This means that it is depending on these three levels of discrimination that greed and other mental states are generated. Among these, the first five discriminations are the products of the cognitive hindrances, and the [latter] two mental states [of attraction and aversion] are [produced from] afflictive hindrances. Strictly speaking, when the afflictions arise following the third mental moment, these five kinds of discrimination are already present. The nature of the cognitive hindrances creates the root of the afflictions. However, if we interpret in a more general manner, then we can simply say that prior and after produce each other. From this perspective, we can say that the eight kinds of discrimination are all direct confusion in regard to the fourth truth. 179

如古論云。 「如是如實凡愚不知、起八妄想、已後生三事。」 [T 1581.30.895b7–8.]新論中言。 「又、諸愚夫不了眞實、從此因緣八分別轉、能生三事。」 [T 1579.30.489c9–10]故。如是八種妄想分別是顯了門所知障攝。

As the Old Treatise (the Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra) says, “All unenlightened fools, not knowing reality, give rise to the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization, and these subsequently give rise to the three phenomena.” 180 In the New Treatise (the Yogâcārabhūmi) it says: “Furthermore, all foolish worldlings do not cognize reality, and because of this, the eight kinds of discrimination arise, generating the three phenomena.” (T 1579.30.489c9–10) Thus, these eight kinds of deluded conceptualization are included in the cognitive hindrances from the Explicit perspective.

2.4.5. The Three Categories of Affliction

[HBJ 1.800c18, WSC 481]


Fifth is the explanation of the three kinds of affliction. These are the afflictions eliminated in the Path of Seeing, the afflictions eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, and those that are not eliminated in either path. In terms of their distribution, there are two levels [that of the adherents of the two vehicles and that of the bodhisattvas].


If we elucidate the three kinds of affliction from the standpoint of the two vehicles, then the afflictions produced by discrimination are eliminated in the Path of Seeing, and the innate afflictions are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation. The cognitive hindrances are not eliminated in either path. If we explain the three types of affliction from the standpoint of the bodhisattva [vehicle], then everything within both hindrances that is arisen by discrimination is eliminated in the Path of Seeing. All innate afflictions, except for those in the eighth consciousness, are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation.


[801a] The previously discussed removal of the extremely subtle cognitive hindrances, along with the previously discussed elimination of the habit energies of the two hindrances, along with the fundamental karmic defilements explained in the Inexplicit category of obstructions of affliction, as well as with the entrenchment of nescience in the Inexplicit category of obstructions to wisdom—none of these are eliminated in either of the two paths. This is because only the practices of the final path are able to eliminate them. This outlines the general framework of their categorization. The precise details of these distinctions [in the levels at which specific hindrances are removed] will be explained in a subsequent section (the section on the elimination of the hindrances).

2.4.6. The Two Categories of Affliction

[HBJ 1.801a6, WSC 483]]


Sixth is the explanation of the two categories of afflictions: entrenched afflictions and arisen afflictions. The arisen afflictions include all of the actively binding and latent afflictions associated with mind, as explained through the Explicit aspect of the two hindrances. All are able to manifest in based on the entrenchments, and are thus called “arisen.” 181

The relation between these two can be understood in the way that grasses, trees and their seeds all rely upon the earth. When the entrenched afflictions are discussed in a general sense, then there is nothing but the singular entrenchment of nescience. Its characteristics are as previously explained in the section on the substance of the hindrances. If we discuss them in terms of their distinctions, then there are basically two kinds. The first are the innate entrenchments, which are also known as the entrenchments of the identity-view. The second are the constructed entrenchments, which are also known as the entrenchments of emotion toward the three realms.

[HBJ 1.801a15, WSC 484]


The reason they are called “innate” is because they arise spontaneously in the state of non-awareness of thusness. They are beginningless, and therefore they are said to be “innate.” Since the point in regard to which they are deluded is thusness, they are not the same as the constructed entrenchments. Blurring the space of the three realms [the deluded] say “everything is one:” one location, one mark, perfect equality, with no distinction to be obtained between seer and seen. But since this person is not awakened, it is called a “view.” When one is awakened, then there are no views, and so therefore it is called the “entrenchment of the identity-view.”

[HBJ 1.801a21, WSC 484]


What is the meaning of “constructed entrenchments”? This means that based upon innate entrenchments, one gives rise to the mental states of the three realms, not realizing that its objects are actually thusness. This enables the production of the afflictions of the three realms. Because these [innate entrenchments] give rise to those [constructed entrenchments] the mind does not apprehend its objects. Because delusions are not innate, they are said to be constructed. Since the emotive attachments are the same in their obscuration of objects, they are all included in the category of emotive mental functions. Therefore they are also known as the entrenchments of the emotive category.

[HBJ 1.801b1, WSC 486]


[801b] Furthermore, these constructed entrenchments give rise to emotion regarding the three realms, 182 and so they are divided into three kinds of entrenchments. These are the entrenchments of the desire realm, the entrenchments of the form realm, and the entrenchments of the formless realm. They are also called the entrenchments of emotions in the desire [realm], etc., up to the entrenchments of emotions in regard to existence. When the innate entrenchment is added together with these three constructed entrenchments, there are in total four types of entrenchments.

[HBJ 1.801b5, WSC 486]


Yet, in their character of being [manifestations of] non-enlightenment, these three constructed entrenchments and the innate entrenchment are equal, having no distinctions of coarse and subtle. Therefore, the four types are collectively referred to as “beginningless entrenchments of nescience.” Furthermore, these four kinds are not concomitant with mind, and they are also not the same as the arisen afflictions, which are concomitant [only] momentarily. Therefore they are comprehensively called “entrenchments of nescience not concomitant with mind.” It is comparable to the evening darkness that spreads throughout the entire sky, below which are three kinds of pavilions. Since the darkness within each pavilion is the unique characteristic of that pavilion, each can be separately called the “darkness of that pavilion.” Yet the characteristics of the darkness of each of the three pavilions are not in fact different from the darkness of the sky itself, and so therefore they are all termed together as the “evening darkness.” You should understand the principle being explained here in the same way.

[HBJ 1.801b14, WSC 488]

本業經言。 「一切衆生識始起一相、住於緣。背 [WSC, Taishō and KT have instead of HBJ’s .]第一義諦起、故名惑。是爲住地名生得惑。因此住、起一切惑。從一切法緣生、名作得惑。起欲界惑、名欲界住地。起色界惑、名色界住地。起心惑故、名無色界住地。以此四住地、起一切煩惱故、爲始起四住地。其四住地前便無法起、故名無始無明住地。金剛智知此始起一相有終、而不知其始前有法無法。云何而得知生得一住地作得三住地。佛知始終。」 [T 1485.24.1021c28–1022a10]

As the Benye jing says:

The consciousnesses of all sentient beings first give rise to a single mark, and abide in it as referent. Since this arises in opposition to the ultimate truth it is called “mental disturbance.” This becomes an entrenchment called innate affliction. Based on this entrenchment, one gives rise to all afflictions. Following this, all dharmas are born from conditions, and these are called constructed afflictions. Those that give rise to the afflictions of the desire realm are called the entrenchments of the desire realm. Those that give rise to the afflictions of the form realm are called the entrenchments of the form realm. Those that give rise to [purely] conceptual afflictions are called the entrenchments of the formless realm. Since, through these four kinds of entrenchments, one gives rise to all afflictions, this constitutes the arising of the four entrenchments. Prior to these four entrenchments, there is no phenomenon that is arisen; therefore it is called the beginningless entrenchment of nescience. The person at the level of the adamantine wisdom is aware that this initially arisen single mark has an end, but does not know whether or not there are phenomena prior to its initial arising. How can we [fully] fathom the single innate entrenchment and the three constructed entrenchments? Only the buddhas know from the beginning to end. (T 1485.24.1021c28–1022a10)

[HBJ 1.801c1, WSC 489]

勝鬘經言。 「煩惱有二種。謂住地煩惱及起煩惱。住地有四種。何等爲四。一、見一處住地、二、欲愛住地、三、色愛住地、四、有愛住地。此四種住地生一切起煩惱。起煩惱者、刹那心刹那相應。世尊、心不相應無始無明住地。」 [T 353.12.220a2–6]

[801c] The Śrīmālā-sūtra says:

There are two kinds of afflictions: entrenched afflictions and arisen afflictions. There are four kinds of entrenched afflictions. What are the four? The first is the entrenchments of the view of entities. The second are the entrenchments of emotions in the desire [realm]; the third are the entrenchments of emotions in the form [realm]; the fourth are the entrenchments of emotions in regard to existence itself. These four kinds of entrenched afflictions generate all of the arisen afflictions. The arisen afflictions are concomitant with each moment of the mind. World Honored One, the mind is not concomitant with the beginningless entrenchment of nescience. (T 353.12.220a2–6)

[HBJ 1.801c6, WSC 490]


It should be understood that from the point of view of their differences, there are four kinds of entrenchments. But from a broader perspective, there is only the singular entrenchment of nescience. Seeing it from the perspective that beyond these four there is no other entrenchment, we say that there are four kinds. But when these four are seen as one, it is called the entrenchment of nescience that is not concomitant with mind. If we add these general and specific aspects together, we then have a total of five types of entrenchments, which are nothing other than nescience.

無明有通有別。如多羅有其通別。十二部經通名多羅、是爲通相。餘十一部之所不攝直說、蘊、界、處、等法門名修多羅、是爲別相。無明亦爾。四種住地通名無明、是爲通相無明住地。如二經之所說故。其有愛數三所不攝、直迷一處生得住地、還受 [WSC’s is correct instead of HBJ’s .]無明住地名者。是爲別相無明住地。如言。 「無明住地其力最大、唯佛菩提智所能斷。」 [T 353.12.220a10–15.]故。

Nescience can be interpreted generally or specifically. It is like the general and specific connotations of the term “scripture.” The twelve genre divisions of the Buddhist canon can be classified under the general rubric of “scripture.” This is the usage of the term in a general sense. Then again, the discourse containing the [Buddha’s] direct teaching of the aggregates, realms, fields, and so forth that is not contained in the remaining eleven divisions of the canon is also called “scripture.” Here the term is being interpreted more specifically. This conception of nescience can be understood in the same way. When the four kinds of entrenchments are termed together as “nescience,” this is the general interpretation of the entrenchment of nescience. It is as was explained in the above two scriptural citations. That which is not included in the three kinds of habituated attachment to existence is the innate entrenchment of direct error of the entity view, which is again termed “entrenchment of nescience.” This is a specific aspect of the entrenchment of nescience. As the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “The power of the entrenchment of nescience is so extremely great that only the enlightened wisdom of the buddhas is able to eliminate it.” (T 353.12.220a10–15)

[HBJ 1.801c19, WSC 493]

又、直就有愛數所攝中、總別合數立四住地。謂別三愛數住地及總無明住地。如言。 「非聲聞緣覺不斷無明住地。」 [T 353.12.221a24]又言。 「阿羅漢辟支佛斷有愛數四住地。」 [T 353.12.220a23–24]故。

Furthermore, from the perspective of the entrenchments of the afflictive emotions regarding existence, the general and specific tallied together comprise four kinds of entrenchment of nescience. This implies the three kinds of specific emotional afflictions regarding existence, plus the generic aspect of the entrenchment of nescience. As the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “Only the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are able to eliminate the entrenchment of nescience.” (T 353.12.221a24) The [same text] also says: “arhats and pratyekabuddhas eradicate the four kinds of entrenchments of the afflictions of emotion regarding existence.” (T 353.12.220a23–24)


[802a] Why is it necessary to combine the general and specific interpretations? It is done to illustrate the fact that even though the energy that is produced by each of the three kinds of emotional entrenchments is different, there is no [distinction of] coarseness and subtlety in their obscuring effects. It should be understood that the four entrenchments explicitly taught in the sūtras are only the four types of specific entrenchments. All of the entrenchments are included in these four, and you can again say that these four include the four entrenchments of emotive afflictions regarding existence. This is the reason for the combined explanation of the general and specific interpretations. The entrenchment of the view of oneness is not part of this set of four. The rationale for the two different sets of four should be understood in this way.

[HBJ 1.802a5, WSC 494]


Another reason that two kinds of general and specific characteristics are posited within the entrenchment of nescience is to make clear that its power is by far the greatest. What does this mean? If we were to compare the most virulent of the seeds that are the ground of the mind that are included in each of the four kinds of entrenchment of nescience to the broadly interpreted entrenchment of nescience, then even though the seeds are great in number, their power is weak. [On the other hand,] even though nescience is only one, its power is exceedingly strong. This is because all of the seeds are able only to generate their own separate mental conditions, and do not have influence on other states. But this single entrenchment fully supports all the most virulent seeds that affect the mind, and is therefore especially strong. It is like comparing [the power of] the seeds of all kinds of vegetation to that of the earth. The [the entrenchment of nescience] is like this.

[HBJ 1.802a15, WSC 496]

故如言。 「此四住地力中一切上心 [KT does not have here.]煩惱依種、比無明住地算 [Taishō and WSC ’s works better than HBJ’s .]數譬喩所不能及。」 [T 353.12.220a6–8]故。更、就如是通相無明住地力內、別取有愛數四住地。比於有愛所不攝別相無明住地力者。雖復同是心不相應、而無明住地其力最大。

As the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “The power of these four entrenched afflictions is the basis for all virulent mental afflictions, but cannot be compared in terms of number and metaphor to the entrenchment of nescience.” (T 353.12.220a6–8) Once again, from the standpoint of the power of the entrenchment of nescience in its broad interpretation [the sutra] separately takes the four kinds of entrenched afflictions of emotion in regard to existence and compares them with the power of the entrenchment of nescience in its specific interpretation, which is not included in the entrenched afflictions of emotional states concerning existence. Even though they are the same in their not being concomitant with mind, the power of the entrenchment of nescience is vastly greater.

[HBJ 1.802a19, WSC 496]


Why is it so? These four entrenched afflictions of emotions in regard to existence are all of the constructed type [rather than the innate type], and so the delusion that they bring about is limited in its extent. Therefore they can be eradicated by lesser forms of wisdom. The essence of the entrenchment of nescience is the innate confusion in regard oneness, and so [its power is] vast and great without limit—something that all kinds of lesser wisdom are incapable of eradicating. It can only be eliminated after attaining the mirrorlike cognitive faculty. Therefore the power of this nescience is [said to be] extremely great. It is like the difference between the darkness in a house, which can be removed by a single lamp, while the darkness of the entire sky is something upon which the lamp will have virtually no effect. [802b] Only when the sun rises in the heavens will this darkness disappear. You should understand the nescience being discussed here in the same way.

言。 「如是無明住地力於有愛數四住其力最大。阿羅漢辟支佛智所不能斷。唯佛如來菩提智之所能斷。」 [T 353.12.220a13–15]故。是謂住地及起二種煩惱差別。

As the [Śrīmālā]-sūtra says: “The power of the entrenchment of nescience is vastly greater than that of the four entrenched afflictions of emotion in regard to existence, such that the wisdom of the arhats and pratyekabuddhas is unable to eradicate it. Only the enlightened wisdom of the buddha-tathāgatas is able to eradicate it.” (T 353.12.220a13–15) This concludes the discussion of the distinction of the two kinds affliction of entrenched and arisen.

[HBJ 1.802b6, WSC 498]


Among these two, the arisen afflictions are included in category of both of the hindrances discussed in the Explicit interpretation, as well as the afflictive obstructions discussed in the Inexplicit interpretation. The entrenched afflictions are not discussed in the Explicit interpretation. There mental disturbances are only considered to be included in the category of the obstructions to wisdom in the Inexplicit interpretation.

摠而言之略有六句。或有煩惱 [Based on the other five listed below, 煩惱 here should probably be .]門、唯煩惱所攝。或有惑門、唯所知障所攝。或有惑門通二障所攝。此三種門已如前說。或有惑門唯顯了門中二障所攝、非習氣攝。如三住所斷六種麤重等。或有惑門通二障正及習氣攝。謂十一地所斷十一種障門等。或有惑門二障正習及二礙攝。謂二十二愚癡及十一種麤重等。此餘一切諸煩惱門隨其所應摠 [The logograph , which is indicated in a note in HBJ, and used in WSC, works better than HBJ’s .]攝應知。當如是二障二礙總攝一切惑門旣盡。諸門相攝分竟。

There are in total six categories that can be identified with the frameworks of the hindrances: (1) mental disturbances 183 that are subsumed only under the afflictive hindrances; (2) mental disturbances that are subsumed only under cognitive hindrances; (3) mental disturbances that are included in both kinds of hindrances. These three categories have been discussed above; (4) mental disturbances that are subsumed only under the Explicit aspects of both hindrances, excluding habit energies. For example, the six kinds of debilitating afflictions that are eliminated in the three abodes, and so forth; (5) delusions that are subsumed under the two hindrances proper, as well as by the habit energies—for example, the eleven kinds of hindrances that are eliminated during the eleven stages, and so forth; (6) delusions that are subsumed under the two hindrances proper, the habit energies, as well as the two obstructions [from the Inexplicit teaching]. For example, the twenty-two kinds of delusion, the eleven debilitating obstructions, and so forth. 184 All other categories of the afflictions and their derivative phenomena should be understood as included here. This covers the two kinds of hindrances and two kinds of obstructions and fully encompasses all the various aspects of the teaching regarding mental disturbances. This concludes the section on the summary of the various categories of affliction.

2.5. Counteracting and Eliminating the Hindrances

[HBJ 1.802b20, WSC 501第五明治斷者、略有四重。一簡能治、二定所斷、三明治斷差別、四辨治斷階位。]

The fifth section treats the counteracting and elimination of the hindrances. It is explained from four basic perspectives: (1) the antidotes; (2) that which is to be eliminated; (3) the divisions of antidotes and elimination; (4) the stages of antidotes and elimination.

2.5.1. The Antidotes

[HBJ 1.802b22, WSC 501]

簡能治者、能治之道總說有二。謂世間道及出世間道。世間道義如常可解。出世間道者有其三 [In view of the context, no doubt HBJ’s should be .]種。謂見道、修道、乃究竟道。此三道內有五、四、三、如其次第差別應知。見道五者、一資粮道、二方便道、三無間道、四解脫道、五勝進道。修道四者、除資粮道有餘四種。先已積集二資粮故。究竟道三者、除勝進道有餘三種。無上菩提無所進故。

The antidotes for counteracting [the hindrances] are said to have two broad methodological aspects: the mundane path and the supramundane path. The content of the mundane path is readily understandable in the conventional sense. [802c] The supramundane path has three 185 divisions: the Path of Seeing, the Path of Cultivation and the Final Path. Within each of these three there are contained five, four and three sub-paths, respectively. Within the Path of Seeing there are five: (1) the Path of Preparation; (2) the Path of Skillful Means; (3) the Instantaneous Path; (4) the Path of Liberation, and (5) the Path of Excellent Advancement. The Path of Cultivation consists of four—the four besides the Path of Preparation. [The reason the Path of Preparation can be eliminated is] because the two provisions [of virtue and wisdom] have already been accumulated. In the Final Path there are three, which are the same as those from the Path of Cultivation, minus the Path of Excellent Advancement. This is because once one has achieved perfect enlightenment there is no path on which to further advance.

[HBJ 1.802c6, WSC 502]

初五之中資粮道者、謂諸凡夫所有尸羅、守護根門等、乃至懃修止觀正知而住。諸如是等解脫分善根爲資粮道。方便道者、所有資粮皆是方便、復有方便非資粮道。所謂順決擇分善根。無間道者、謂方便道最後刹那、世第一法無間定位。由此道力從此無間必能永斷惑種子故。解脫道者、謂正通達見道自性。以此見道自性解脫證斷煩惱之解脫。勝進道者、謂後得智具知名義、勝前智故。爲進後位起加 [WSC ’s is obviously correct as compared to HBJ’s .]行故。總相雖然、於中分別者。此中餘四種道具如一道章說。

The Path of Preparation in the first group of five refers to the abiding by worldlings in the practices of morality, restraint and so forth up to effort, meditation and wisdom. 186 All these kinds of wholesome roots that are the causes of liberation constitute the Path of Preparation. As for the Path of Skillful Means: the virtues cultivated in the Path of Preparation are all also considered to be skillful means, but there are aspects of the Path of Skillful Means that are not included in the Path of Preparation—for example, the wholesome roots conducive to right ascertainment. The Instantaneous Path is the very final moment of the Path of Skillful Means—the momentary positioning of the highest worldly meditative state. 187 Based on the power of this path, in this instant one is definitely able to permanently eliminate the seeds of affliction. The Path of Liberation is named as such because one penetrates precisely to the essence of the Path of Seeing. Due to the liberation brought about by this essence of the Path of Seeing, one realizes the liberation of the elimination of afflictions. The Path of Excellent Advancement is so called because the subsequently attained cognition 188 includes the knowledge of words and their meaning, and therefore it surpasses the prior cognition. It is also named as such because one advances to the next stage, giving rise to applied practices. Even though their general characteristics are as I have described here, there are also distinctions among the paths. The components of the remaining four paths are as I have explained in my Essay on the Single Path. 189

[HBJ 1.802c18, WSC 505]


Here I will focus on explaining only the fourth path. We will define the Path of Seeing based on two kinds of authorities. The first is defining the truth based on scriptural authority. The second is defining by the authority of the inner realization of the supreme truth. The Definition Based on Scriptural Authority


Within the first definition, there is first the explanation according to the teachings for the two vehicles, and then the interpretation according to the teaching for the bodhisattvas. At the time the practitioner of the two vehicles enters the Path of Seeing, it is said that according to the order of the sixteen mental states, 190 one gradually eliminates the lesser afflictions of the higher and lower eight truths. 191 As it says in the Section on Ascertaining the Śrāvaka’s Stages [of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra]:

「若 [Here and the next instance, WSC has instead of , even though it disagrees with T and KT. This is probably because both 苦法 and 苦類 are categories of the sixteen minds.]法智品見道、對治欲界見所斷惑 [T and KT have here instead of HBJ’s .]。若類智品見道對治、色無色界見所斷惑。」 [T 1579.30.683b15–16]故。所以安立十六心者、由此見道能生出觀十六行相差別世智。是故因中說其果相。

[803a] Using dharma-cognition in the Path of Seeing, one counteracts the afflictions of the desire realm. Using the cognition of types in the Path of Seeing, one counteracts the afflictions that are eliminated in the form realm and formless realm. (T 1579.30.683b15–16)

The reason that the sixteen mental states are posited is because the Path of Seeing is able to produce the conventional cognition that observes the distinctions in the sixteen defining activities [of the Four Truths]. Therefore, this explains the effects from the perspective of their causes.

[HBJ 1.803a5, WSC 506]

若論菩薩入見道時、有三種心次第而起。初觀人空、對治人執。次觀法空、對治法執。第三心時總觀二空證斷二執。如瑜伽 說。

If we discuss the bodhisattvas’ entry into their Path of Seeing, there are three kinds of meditative states that are practiced in succession. The first is the contemplation of the selflessness of person, which counteracts the attachment to person. The second is the contemplation of the selflessness of dharmas, which overcomes the attachment to dharmas. In the third meditative state, the bodhisattvas comprehensively contemplate both kinds of selflessness, and accomplish the elimination of both kinds of attachment. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

「從順決擇分邊際善根、無間有初內遣有情假法緣心生。能除耎 [Taishō has instead of , while WSC has . All three have basically the same meaning.]品見道所斷煩惱麤重。從此無間、第二內遣諸法假法緣心生。能除中品見斷麤重。從此無間第三遍遣一切有情諸法假法緣心生、能除一切見斷麤重。」 [T 1579.30.605c19–24.]故。

At the final extent of the wholesome roots conducive to right ascertainment, there is, without a moment’s lapse, the appearance of the first mental state—that which internally expels cognition of the provisional appearance of sentient beings. This [mental state] is able to remove the debilitating aspects of the hindrances of mild strength that are eliminated in the Path of Seeing. Immediately after this is the appearance of the second mental state, which internally expels cognition of the provisional appearance of all dharmas. This [mental state] is able to remove the debilitating aspects of medium strength, of the hindrances that are eliminated in the Path of Seeing. Immediately after this, the third conditioned mental state arises, which pervasively expels the link to the provisional appearance of all sentient beings and dharmas, and is able to remove all of the debilitating hindrances of the Path of Seeing. (T 1579.30.605c19–24)


The reason that these three mental states are posited is that they are practiced in distinct order in the Path of Skillful Means. From this applied practice, one can advance to the Path of Seeing. Therefore [it is called] the interpretation that explains the causes from the perspective of the effects. It is called the position based on scriptural authority, which establishes the distinctions in the characteristics within the Path of Seeing. The Definition Based on the Inner Realization of the Supreme Truth The Relationship of the Manas with the Manovijñāna and Ālayavijñāna

[HBJ 1.803a18, WSC 509]


Next is the definition based on the inner realization of the supreme truth. When the sages of the Three Vehicles enter the Path of Seeing, there is only the one mind, which internally realizes thusness. There are no distinctions such as those of the sixteen mental states or three mental states. When we say “one mind,” we mean that once one enters into this contemplation, the mind only has one property. Prior and after are the same, without distinctions. Therefore it is said to be “one mind.” We do not say “one mind” from the perspective of momentariness.

[HBJ 1.803a22, WSC 510]

夫人經言。 「聲聞緣覺初觀聖諦、以一智斷諸住地。一智四斷。」 [T 353.12.221a20–21.] 深蜜經言。 「一切聲聞、獨覺、菩薩、皆共此一妙淸淨道。皆同此一究竟淸淨。」 [T 676.16.695a17–18]故。又、顯揚論云。 「除衆生執現起纏故、覺法實性。{覺法性故}永斷法執。法執斷時、當知亦斷衆生執隨眠。」 [T 1602.31.559c4–6.]瑜伽論中亦同此說。

As the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “When the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas first contemplate on the holy truths, with one type of cognition they eliminate all entrenched afflictions. A single type of cognition eliminates all four.” (T 353.12.221a20–21) The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: “All śrāvakas , pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas share together in this single marvelous pure path. All are the same in this single absolute purity.” (T 676.16.695a17–18) Furthermore, the Xianyang lun says: “Removing the actively binding afflictions of attachment to sentient beinghood, one awakens to the true nature of dharmas. [803b] [Having awakened to the true nature of dharmas,] one permanently eliminates attachment to dharmas. It should be understood that when the attachment to dharmas is eliminated, one also eliminates the latent attachment to sentient beinghood.” (T 1602.31.559c4–6) The Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra also gives the same kind of explanation.

[HBJ 1.803b4, WSC 510]


Based on these passages, it should be clear that the bodhisattvas suddenly realize the thusness of the two kinds of selflessness at the same time, and suddenly eliminate the seeds and latent afflictions of both kinds of attachment. But if this one mind equally realizes thusness, what differences are there between the Paths of Seeing of the practitioners of the three different vehicles? The adherents of the two vehicles only contemplate thusness in its defined aspect. To define thusness is like looking at the color of the sky through a bamboo tube. The bodhisattvas rely without discrimination on both the defined and undefined truths to simultaneously contemplate thusness as well as distinctions in own-nature. It is like the undiscriminating penetration of those who possess the pure divine eye, who fully and fully view the colors of the sky from within and without. 192 Therefore while seeing thusness, one also sees that things have distinctions.

[HBJ 1.803b12, WSC 513]

瑜伽說。 「云何聲聞乘相應作意修。謂由安立諦作意門內、觀眞如緣有量 [T and WSC have , which reads more correctly than HBJ’s .]有分別法爲境。云何大乘相應作意修。謂由安立非安立諦作意門內、觀眞如緣無量 [T and WSC have , which reads more correctly than HBJ’s .]無分別法爲境。」 等乃至廣說。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

What is the practice of contemplation appropriate to adherents of the vehicle of the śrāvakas? Contemplating on the defined truth, they observe thusness as an object that is limited and has phenomenal distinctions. What is the practice of contemplation appropriate to adherents of the Great Vehicle? Contemplating on both the defined and undefined truths, they observe thusness as an object that is without limit and lacks phenomenal distinctions . . . (T 1579.30.668c4–14 abridged)

And so on.

[HBJ 1.803b16, WSC 513]

又下文言。 「略說法界有二種相。一差別相、二者自相。差別相者、謂常住相及寂靜相。常住相者、謂本來無生法性及無盡法性。寂靜相者、謂煩惱苦 [Using T and KT’s instead of HBJ’s .]離繫法性。言自相者、謂於相、名、分別、眞如、正智所攝一切法中。由遍計所執自性故、自性不成實法無我性。此中聲聞由差別相通達法界、不由自相以通達彼。何以故。由無沒相及安隱相 [The Yogâcārabhūmi has 無沒想及安隱想.] 於法界中得寂靜相 [The Yogâcārabhūmi has 寂靜想.]。於一切行、一向發起厭背之想。」 [T 1579.738a19–29.]

Further below it says:

The realm of existence can be explained as having two general characteristics. The first are the characteristics of distinction; the second are the characteristics of identity. The characteristics of distinction include the aspect of constancy and the aspect of quiescence. The aspect of constancy includes the originally unborn essential nature and the inexhaustible essential nature. The aspect of quiescence is the essential nature free from the bondages of affliction and suffering.“Characteristics of identity” refers to all the dharmas included in characteristics, name, discrimination, thusness, and corrective wisdom. 193 Since these are of the nature of pervasive discrimination (parikalpita), they are not of the selfless perfected nature (pariniṣpanna). Here the śrāvakas comprehend the realm of existence based on distinctive characteristics, not by perceiving characteristics of identity. Why? [802c] Based on conceptions of continuity and security, they attain the conception of quiescence within the realm of existence, and they are unfailingly disillusioned with all karmic formations. (T 1579.738a19–29)

[HBJ 1.803c2, WSC 515]

「若諸菩薩倶由二相、通達法界入於菩薩正性離生、已當安住緣於法界自相作意。何以故。由於法界緣差別相、當作意時、速趣涅槃故、於阿菩提非正方便。」 [T 1579.738b6–11.]故。是謂大小見道差別。又、三乘人入見道時、末那相應平等智生。隨其所應緣平等性、與意識智同所緣轉。所以然者、無漏意識必有無漏不共所依故。

If the bodhisattvas, based equally on both characteristics, penetrate the realm of existence and enter the condition of the bodhisattva’s correct nature of freedom from affliction (the Path of Seeing), then they should already be abiding in the contemplation that takes the characteristics of identity in the realm of existence as referent. Why? If they contemplate the realm of existence relying [only] on characteristics of distinction, and thus proceed directly to nirvāṇa, this is not the correct skillful means of perfect enlightenment. (T 1579.738b6–11)

Herein lies the difference between the Paths of Seeing in the greater and Lesser Vehicles.

Furthermore, when the adherents of the Three Vehicles enter the Path of Seeing, they produce the cognitive faculty that apprehends equality, which is transmuted from the manas. It cognizes equality as it should, arisen by the same referents as the [purified] cognition of the manovijñāna. This is because the uncontaminated manovijñāna must have its own uncontaminated support.

[HBJ 1.803c11, WSC 517]

顯揚論云。 意者謂從阿賴耶識種子所生。還緣彼識、我癡、我愛、我、我所執、我慢相應。或翻彼相應於一切時 [According to T and WSC, using instead of HBJ’s .]恃擧爲行。或平等爲 [T and KT do not have .]行與彼倶轉。了別爲性。如薄伽梵說、內意處不壞 [Following T and WSC with instead of HBJ’s .]外法處。現前及彼所生作意正起。如是所生意識得生。  [T 1602.31.480c23–27.]故。

As the Xianyang lun says:

The manas is born from the seeds in the ālayavijñāna. Then, taking that consciousness as its referent, the [errors of] self-delusion, self-love, “I,” “mine,” and the conceit “I am” [arise] concomitantly. Sometimes [the manas] resists its binding with the ālaya and continually seeks agitation. Sometimes it functions in equanimity together with [the ālaya] Deliberation is its nature. As the Bhagavān says: “the inner mental base does not damage external mental objects. When [objects] are present, its attention is directly stimulated. According to this stimulation, the mano [sixth] consciousness arises. (T 1602.31.480c23–27) ”

[HBJ 1.803c17, WSC 517]

瑜伽論說。 「問。彼末那於一切時思量爲性、相續而轉。如世尊說、出世末那云何建立。答。名假施設 [Here I use Taishō’s instead of HBJ’s .]不必如義。又、對治彼遠離顚倒正思量故。卽此末那任持意識、令分別轉。是故說爲意識所依。」 [T 1579.30.651b29–c4.]

The Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

Question: The nature of the manas is that of perpetual deliberation; it is continually active without interruption. How can [such a thing as] a supramundane manas, as taught by the World Honored One, be posited?

Answer: This is a nominal designation, which need not be taken as the final truth. Nonetheless, if the manas is corrected, one can remove its distortions and can deliberate correctly. The manas supports the manovijñāna (sixth consciousness), causing it to discriminate. Therefore the manas is said to be the basis for the manovijñāna. (T 1579.30.651b29–c4)

[HBJ 1.803c22, WSC 519]


The meaning of this question can be stated like this: As is said in the above section that defines the characteristics of the manas consciousness, this manas exists continually bound to the four afflictions, its nature is that of constant deliberation. In this interpretation, [it would seem that] a supramundane manas cannot be posited, since it is at all times deliberating on a self.

答。意有二種。初者且 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]約世間施設名義、說一切時思量爲性。就其實義、非一切時思量我塵。是故名假施設。未必一切皆如實義。

Answer: [804a] There are two kinds of manas. The first is that according to the conventional definition, which says that it is the nature of [the manas] to be continually assessing. From the absolute standpoint however, it is not always deliberating on the self as its object. Therefore this is called a nominal designation. It is not necessary for every single explanation of the manas to be from the ultimate perspective.

[HBJ 1.804a4, WSC 519]


What is the second meaning of manas? When this manas is confused, it deliberates on the self as an object. When it is not confused, it deliberates on selflessness. It always operates sharing the same objects with the manovijñāna, and therefore it does not have the same supports as the manovijñāna. Hence, even though it is its nature to perpetually deliberate, this does not eliminate the possibility of positing a supramundane manas. For this reason the manas does not engage in practices of spiritual cultivation, but directly relies on cultivation by other [consciousnesses]. 194 When it suddenly becomes free from error, it is because of its not sharing its basis [with the manovijñāna], and because its fundamental nature is pure.

如異熟識、不修方便。而由意識聖道勢力、彼異熟識忽離種子。由諸轉識通所依故。末那亦爾。不修方便、而由意識無漏道力、忽離相應四種煩惱。以是意識不共依故。又、末那自性本來淸淨、唯由相應且 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]被染耳。故離倒時卽正思量。

It is like the ripening consciousness (vipāka-vijñāna), which does not engage in practices of spiritual cultivation. But due to the power of the noble paths being cultivated through the manovijñāna, the ripening consciousness is suddenly freed from its seeds. This is because it is the basis for all the forthcoming consciousnesses. It is the same with the manas—even though it does not cultivate spiritual practices, through the power of the uncontaminated path of the manovijñāna, it suddenly becomes freed from its binding with the four kinds of afflictions. This is because it does not share its basis with the manovijñāna. Furthermore, the basic nature of the manas is originally pure. It is only from its association [with the afflictions] that it becomes polluted. Hence, once freed from confusion, it deliberates correctly.

[HBJ 1.804a16, WSC 521]

如思所成地 [ has to be , as a component in the name of a section the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, which starts from fascicle 16, at T vol. 30, p. 361b.]頌曰。

等。下卽釋言。 「又、顯 [Taishō and WSC have instead of .]所說解脫之相、謂非卽彼生已後方淸淨、別有所餘淸淨。意生卽彼先來無染汚故、說爲解脫。」 [T 1579.30.365b28–c1.]乃至廣說。

As a verse in the section [of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra] on the Stage Consummated by Thought says:

At all times in the defiled manas

All afflictions arise and cease together.

Once one is liberated from these afflictions

There is neither before nor after.

It is not the case that first dharmas are born

And then afterwards become purified.

Dharmas are originally not defiled

That is what is meant by freedom from all afflictions.

All, appearing to be polluted,

Are ultimately pure in nature. (T 1579.30.364a6–10)

... and so forth.

The explanation below this says:

Furthermore, concerning the characteristics of liberation that have been described, it should not be construed that they are purified only after the full arising [of dharmas] —that there is some kind of other purity. At the point where the manas arises, it originally lacks defilement, and therefore one is said to be liberated. (T 1579.30.365b28–c1)

...and so on.

[HBJ 1.804a23, WSC 523依此等文、當知出世意識、必有出世末那。摠相雖然、於中分別者。菩薩見道證二空故、末那二執悉不現行。卽與二空平等智倶。二乘見道但證人空、末那法執猶得現行、唯與人空平等智倶。如意識中證人空邊成無漏智、取苦相邊卽是法執。唯一惠數亦智亦執、而不相妨、所望別故。平等性智當知亦爾。見道差別其相如是。]

Based on these passages, it should be understood that a supramundane manovijñāna must have a supramundane manas. [804b] Yet although this is generally true, there are also special cases. Since the bodhisattvas on the Path of Seeing realize both kinds of selflessness, the two kinds of attachment of the manas are not functioning. Thus it matches with the cognitive faculty that apprehends intrinsic equality perceiving the two kinds of selflessness. In their Path of Seeing, adherents of the two vehicles realize only the selflessness of person, the attachment to dharmas through the manas still functions, and their cognition of intrinsic equality occurs only in reference to the selflessness of person. It is as when one, through the manovijñāna, on one hand, realizes the emptiness of person and ends up producing uncontaminated wisdom, yet on the other hand, when grasping to the marks of suffering, attaches to dharmas. A single cognitive factor functions as both wisdom and attachment, but they do not obstruct each other, since their referent is different. The cognition of intrinsic equality should be understood in the same way. The distinctions in the characteristics of their respective Paths of Seeing are to be understood like this. Elimination of the Hindrances in the Two Kinds of Cognition and the Five Paths

[HBJ 1.804b7, WSC 523]


Among these two kinds of cognition, and five kinds of paths, which are able to counteract the hindrances, and which hindrances are they unable to eliminate? These two kinds of cognition [of the bodhisattvas and buddhas] are both able to counteract the debilitating afflictions. This is because they are contrary in nature, yet they have the same properties. The Five Paths

又、五種道亦悉能治。所以然者、由資粮道厭患對治、漸損煩惱種子勢力、至方便道、隨分漸捨彼品麤重。由無間道、能令無間永滅種子故、是二道爲斷對治。由解脫道能轉煩惱解脫之得故爲轉對治。由勝進道令遠煩惱成熟得故、遠分對治。如對法論云。 「斷對治者謂方便道及無間道。由彼能斷諸煩惱故。」 [T 1606.31.738b3–4.]乃至廣說。

Furthermore, all of the five kinds of paths are also capable of counteracting these hindrances. This is because in the Path of Preparation one becomes disillusioned with the afflictions and works toward their subjugation, gradually weakening the strength of the seeds of affliction, up to the Path of Skillful Means, where one gradually removes their debilitating tendencies. Since, in the Instantaneous Path, one is, in an instant, able to permanently extinguish these seeds, the antidotes used in these two paths are those of elimination (as distinguished from the gradual weakening seen in the Path of Preparation). Since the Path of Liberation is able to transmute affliction into liberation, its function is counteracting by transmutation. Since, in the Path of Excellent Advancement one distances oneself from the maturation of affliction, the antidote in this path is that of distancing. As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says: “The antidote of elimination is applied in the Path of Skillful Means and the Instantaneous Path. This is because it is in these paths that one is able to eliminate all afflictions. . .” (T 1606.31.738b3–4) And so forth.

[HBJ 1.804b18, WSC 526]

由如是等五道二智、衆緣和合方得永離見惑隨眠。故說諸緣皆是能治。離衆緣外無能斷者故。然更就諸緣求其能治、終無有一正能斷者。何以故。如前三道、不離相縛隨眠所逐故、不能斷。第四一道自性解脫無所斷故、亦能治。況 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s .]勝進道而有所斷。如是推求斷不可得、以一切法無作用故。尚不自住況 [WSC has instead of HBJ’s .]滅他故。雖無能斷而非不斷。由前中後衆緣和合故。

It is based on these five paths and two kinds of cognition and the coming together of myriad conditions that one is able to attain complete freedom from the latent view-based afflictions. Therefore it is said that all such conditions are antidotes. This is because, apart from myriad conditions, there is no antidote. However, if we search among the gamut of conditions to find [a certain] antidote, in the end there is no single factor that is responsible for the elimination of afflictions. Why? As with the first three paths, since one is not free from the clutches of the latent afflictions of attachment to the six objective realms, one is not able to eliminate them. Since the fourth path is in itself liberation, there is nothing to be eliminated, and so it acts as an antidote. How then, could there possibly be something to eliminate in the Path of Excellent Advancement? If one seeks elimination here, it will not be found, since all dharmas are inactive. [804c] If they don’t even abide themselves, how can they extinguish something else? Even though there is no specific antidote, there is nothing that is not eliminated. This is because all conditions combine with each other before, in between, and after.

[HBJ 1.804c3, WSC 527]

十地論云。 「此智盡漏爲初智斷、爲中、爲後。非初智斷、亦非中後。如燈炎非初非中後、前中後取故。」 [T 1522.26.132a29–b1.]其實雖然、於諸緣中、拔其最勝與斷功者、唯解脫道說名正斷。

As the Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra 195 says: “In this cognitive extirpation of contamination, there is initial cognitive elimination, intermediate elimination and subsequent elimination. There is also not initial elimination, nor intermediate or subsequent elimination. It is like a lamp’s flame not having prior, middle, or subsequent, [but nonetheless] prior, middle, and subsequent are distinguished.” (T 1522.26.132a29–b1) Even though the situation is actually like this, if we foreground the most effective factors in the task of eliminating afflictions, only that which occurs in the Path of Liberation can be called true elimination.

[HBJ 1.804c7, WSC 527]

瑜伽說。 「問。此諸現觀、能爲煩惱斷對治者、爲生已作斷對治耶、爲未生耶。」

As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

Question: Is the counteracting of the afflictions through elimination by these clear contemplations something that can only be done after the antidotes are fully activated, or can it occur before they are activated?

「答。此非未生。雖言已生而非後時。當知煩惱斷時、對治生時、平等平等。卽於爾時假施設言對治生已諸煩惱斷。」 [T 1579.30.691c13–17.]又、下文言。 「若觀品所攝無漏聖道見斷隨眠隨逐生者、應不得名對治體性。」 [T 1579.30.625a21–22.]是明見道自性解脫故、爲正斷對治體性。

Answer: It does not occur when they have not yet been activated. But when we say they have become fully activated, this does not refer to a subsequent time. It should be understood that the elimination of afflictions and the activity of the antidotes are perfectly simultaneous. At this time, it is stated only as an approximation that all afflictions are eliminated subsequent to the activation of the corrective practices. (T 1579.30.691c13–17)

A later passage says: “If the uncontaminated paths that are included in the practice of clear realization are accompanied by the arising of the latent afflictions that are eliminated in the Path of Seeing, this cannot be called the essential nature of the antidotes.” (T 1579.30.625a21–22) This clarifies that the nature of the Path of Seeing is liberation, and is the essence of true elimination and counteraction.

[HBJ 1.804c15, WSC 530]


The characteristics of the four kinds of paths contained within the Path of Cultivation can generally be understood in the same way as those described above in the section on the Path of Seeing, but there are differences. For example, the Path of Skillful Means is easy to consummate, unlike in the prior stage of According to Ascertainment, where one can enter into correct contemplation only after a long period of assiduous cultivation. This is because one has already entered into the holy paths, and rides on this momentum to advance and enter into the next level of path.

又、無間道與解脫道、未必如前一向別異。如將入八地無相觀、前無間道心非解脫道。十地終心金剛喩定唯解脫道、非無間道。此二中間所有諸心、望前爲解脫道、望後作無間道。七地已還修道位中、隨其增微分有此義。如{攝}論說言 「刹那刹那能壞 [Taishō has instead of HBJ’s .]麤重依法。」 [T 1593.31.126b13.]故。

Furthermore, the Instantaneous Path and Path of Liberation are not necessarily as perfectly distinguished as they were before. It is like the time when one is about to enter the contemplation of marklessness in the eighth bodhisattva ground —the prior mental state of the Instantaneous Path is not the Path of Liberation. Only the final meditative state of the tenth ground, 196 which is the adamantine concentration, is considered to be the Path of Liberation, and not the Instantaneous Path. All the various mental states between these two, when seen in terms of prior, are understood to be part of the Path of Liberation; when seen in terms of subsequent, they are understood as part of the Instantaneous Path. This kind of understanding is seen in the Path of Cultivation leading up to the seventh bodhisattva ground, where there is increasing subtlety in the distinctions of meditative states. [805a] As the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha says: [The first of the five phenomena is] the phenomenon that is relied upon in the moment-to-moment ability to destroy the bases of the debilitating afflictions. (T 1593.31.126b13)

[HBJ 1.805a3, WSC 532]

究竟道中方便道者。於第十地勝進分中、爲欲拔除根本無明、仍不出觀進修方便、方便成滿。最後一念是無間道。如對法論云。 「究竟道者、謂金剛喩定。此定有二種。謂方便道攝及無間道攝。」 [T 1606.31.742b27–8.]故。

What about the case of the Path of Skillful Means within the Ultimate Path? Once one is in the advanced portion of the tenth bodhisattva ground and wants to eradicate fundamental nescience, one does not, in this case, leave meditation to resume the cultivation of skillful means, since skillful means have been completed. The final thought-moment is the Instantaneous Path. As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says: “The Ultimate Path means the adamantine concentration. This concentration has two kinds: that of the Path of Skillful Means and that of the Instantaneous Path.” (T 1606.31.742b27–8)

[HBJ 1.805a8, WSC 532]


It should be understood that the very final adamantine concentration, if seen from the standpoint of that which is eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, is nothing but the Path of Liberation. If seen from the standpoint of those hindrances that are eliminated in neither of the paths, then it is nothing but the Instantaneous Path. Also, from the stage of the adamantine concentration down to the first bodhisattva ground, all practices are included in the Path of Skillful Means in the Ultimate Path.

The wholesome roots contained within the stages of confidence in practice 197 are all the Path of Preparation within the Ultimate Path. For example, the gradient practices contained in the advanced part of the tenth dedication of merit are the skillful means that come close to special cultivation in the Path of Seeing. If we explain fully, then from the stage of the highest worldly meditative state down to the first stage of the ten understandings, all can be considered as the Path of Skillful Means for the Seeing of the Truths. The wholesome roots that are cultivated in the ten stages of faith can also be seen as the Path of Preparation for the Seeing of the Truths. The content of the Ultimate Path should be understood according to this model.

[HBJ 1.805a17, WSC 534]

究竟道中解脫道者、佛地所得大圓鏡智以爲其體。如云。 「無礙道中行名爲菩薩。解脫道中離一切障號 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]曰如來。」 [T 223.8.411b26.]故。此二道位有等不等、何者。若望修道所斷煩惱、金剛心位已得解脫、於此智斷佛不能過故、名等覺、及無垢地。如言。 「行過十地解與佛同。」 [T 1485.24.1018b2.]故。

As for the Path of Liberation in the Ultimate Path, the mirrorlike cognition attained at the Buddha-stage is regarded as its essence. As the [Prajñāpāramitā] Sutra says: “[The practitioner] who courses the unobstructed path is called a bodhisattva. [The practitioner] within the Path of Liberation who separates himself from all hindrances is called a tathāgata.” (T 223.8.411b26) What are the similarities and differences between these two paths? If we look from the perspective of the afflictions eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, then at the stage of the adamantine mind one has already attained liberation. Since this cognitive elimination cannot be surpassed even by the Buddha, it is called virtual enlightenment, or the immaculate stage. As the Benye jing says: “Once one passes beyond the ten grounds, one’s understanding is equal to [that of] the Buddha.” (T 1485.24.1018b2)

[HBJ 1.805a24, WSC 535]

若望非二所斷、無明此時未離。但是信解、未能證見。雖得照寂而非寂照。是故但名菩薩、未名覺者。如言。 「從習忍至金剛三昧、以無相信照...第一義諦...不名爲見。所謂見者、是薩般若」 [ (T 246.8.246b26–29) (abridged greatly and paraphrased).]故。當知菩薩未成佛時、依十八空七種眞如。

From the perspective of the hindrances that are not eliminated in either of the paths, nescience has not yet been cast off at this point. [805b] It is merely [the level of] deep confidence, and one is not yet able to realize direct insight. Even though one has attained illuminated quiescence, this is not quiescent illumination. Therefore one is only called a bodhisattva, and is not called “an enlightened one.” As the Sutra [for Humane Kings] says: “From the practice of the [first] tolerance up to the adamantine absorption ... [all are called] the [tolerances] of markless faith [that quell all afflictions]. With the illumination of the ultimate truth [one extinguishes all afflictions]. . . [none of the insights possessed prior to the adamantine concentration] are called ‘seeing.’ What is called ‘seeing’ is the omniscience [of the buddhas].” (T 246.8.246b26–29 (abridged greatly and paraphrased)) It should be understood that the bodhisattva who has not yet attained Buddhahood must rely on the eighteen kinds of emptiness and the seven kinds of thusness. The Two Kinds of Cognition

[HBJ 1.805b6, WSC 535]

唯由是門、照第一義諦、未能離令寂照獨空、出無明縠 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]了達一如。唯佛如來大圓鏡智、直達獨空、體一法界。二諦之外、獨在無二。例如世第一法以前未能離相通達法空。故有能取所取二相。若得見道無分別智、通達二空、永離能所。二相之外、獨在無二。是故說名佛見淸淨。

Relying on this teaching alone, one is able to illuminate the ultimate truth, but is not free from the quiescent illumination of exclusive emptiness; one does not escape the veil of nescience, and penetrate unalloyed thusness. Only the mirrorlike cognition of the buddha-tathāgatas directly penetrates beyond exclusive emptiness, and fully embodies the single realm of existence. One transcends the two truths, just abiding in non-duality. It is, for example, like the time prior to the attainment of the highest worldly meditative state, where one is unable to abandon marks and penetrate to the selflessness of dharmas. Therefore there are the two marks of grasper and that which is grasped. If one attains the non-discriminating cognition of the Path of Seeing and fully apprehends both kinds of emptiness, he becomes permanently free from subject and object. Outside of the two marks, one abides exclusively in non-duality. Therefore it is called the Buddha’s pure insight.

[HBJ 1.805b13, WSC 538]

當知此中少分相似。依此義故瑜伽論 說。

It should be understood that [the two kinds of cognition of the bodhisattvas and buddhas] resemble each other to a certain extent. Expressing this resemblance, the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

「問。一切安住到究竟地、菩薩智如來智等、云何差別。答。如明眼人隔於輕縠 [T has , WSC has , HBJ has .]覩衆色像。到究竟地、菩薩妙智於一切境當知亦爾。如明眼人無所障隔覩衆色像、如來妙智於一切境當知亦爾。如畫 [Using Taishō/WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]事業圓布衆采、唯後妙色未淨修治、已淨修治。菩薩如來二智亦爾。如明眼人微闇見色、離闇見色、二智亦爾。如遠見色、如近見色、輕翳眼觀極淨眼觀。二智差別當知亦爾。」 (T 1579.30.574b19–c3, abridged.)

Question: What are the differences in the states of stable abiding up through the final stage, in terms of the cognition of the bodhisattvas, the cognition and so forth of the Tathāgata?

Answer: It is like a person with clear eyesight who sees various colors and shapes while obstructed by a thin veil. The subtle wisdom in regard to the objective realm as experienced by bodhisattvas who have arrived at the final stage can be compared to this. It is like the case of a person with clear vision who sees various shapes and colors without any obstruction at all; this is like the subtle wisdom in regard to the objective realm as experienced by the Tathāgata. It can also be compared to the work of painting patterns on a round cloth. After the work is done, although there is marvelous coloration, there is a difference in the appearance of the work before and after its final rinse. The two kinds of cognition possessed by the bodhisattvas and the Tathāgata can be compared to this. Or again, [it is like] the difference between a person with clear vision who sees colors in the condition of slightly dimmed light and the person who sees them in a condition completely free from obscuration. The two kinds of cognition are also comparable to this. Or again, it is like the difference between seeing colors from afar and seeing them from up close. Or the difference between seeing in a person with a slight cataract condition and [seeing in] one who has perfectly clear vision. The distinction in the two kinds of cognition can be understood in the same way. (T 1579.30.574b19–c3, abridged)

[HBJ 1.805b23, WSC 539]

此中五喩有何異者。本識相應微 [WSC has instead of .]細妄想無明所識隔金剛眼。是故似彼隔於輕縠 [T has , WSC has .]。萬行皆修三智已得、而唯未 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]得大圓鏡智。如來淨治最後妙色、解脫二障。故得淨眼。未離極微無明住地、是故不異微闇見色。有惑障習而非親 [HBJ offers the alternative of here.]障法空觀智。故如遠見色。其智障氣、雖是微薄、近蔽 [WSC’s (“veil”) is preferable to HBJ’s (“silk”).]惠眼、事同輕翳。五喩差別應如是知。上來所說簡能治竟。

What are the differences among these five examples? That which is cognized by the nescience of extremely subtle mistaken conceptualization that is associated with the base consciousness obstructs the adamantine eye. [805c] Therefore it is similar to being obstructed by a thin veil. The myriad practices have been cultivated, and one has attained the three kinds of cognition, only lacking the attainment of the mirrorlike cognition. The very final marvelous form purified by the tathāgatas is liberated from the two hindrances; therefore they attain the pure eye. When one is not yet free from the extremely subtle entrenchment of nescience, it is no different from seeing colors in slightly dimmed light. There are habit energies from the delusory hindrances, but they do not directly hinder the wisdom that observes the selflessness of dharmas. Therefore it is like seeing colors from afar. Even though the habit energies of the hindrances to wisdom are extremely subtle, they obstruct the wisdom-eye from a close range, which is in effect the same as having light cataracts. The distinctions in the five kinds of metaphors should be understood like this. The above section concludes the explanation of the antidotes.

2.5.2. Identification of that which is Eliminated

[HBJ 1.805c9, WSC 542]


This topic is explained from four general perspectives: (1) In terms of primary and secondary; (2) from the perspective of activity and quelling; (3) from the standpoint of general and specific, and (4) according to the time. The Identification of that which is Eliminated in Terms of Primary and Secondary

[HBJ 1.805c10, WSC 542]

初依主伴定所斷者。若就生滅門明其相應者、心及心法並是所斷。彼 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]相應縛無離別故。如無相論說。 「若見諦內 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s ; T has , indicating the possibility of in a note.]煩惱識及心法、十六心時究竟斷盡。」 [The Wuxiang lun is not extant, but portions of it are extant in the short Yogâcāra text translated by Paramârtha called the Treatise on the Forthcoming Consciousnesses 轉識論 (T 1587). The original text in Taishō differs enough to be cited here: 若見諦內煩惱識及心法 得出世道十六行究竟滅盡。]故。

If we analyze their association from the standpoint of arising and ceasing, the mind and the mental factors are equally subject to elimination. This is because their bonding is never removed. It is as the Treatise on Signlessness 198 says: “If one sees the afflicted consciousnesses and mental factors contained in the [four] truths, [and attains the supramundane paths,] then at the time of the sixteen minds they are completely eliminated.” (T 1587.31.62a19–21) 199

[HBJ 1.805c14, WSC 542]

若依是義、除滅生死心及心法、更得佛地心及心法。此中無有得作佛者。唯有五蘊 [The note in HBJ offers 有五蘊 instead of 有色有蘊. WSC agrees.]前滅後生。依此義故、佛經中說。捨無常色獲得常色。受想行識亦復如是。 [This line is cited in the same way in other treatises, but the original source is unclear.]

Following this line of reasoning, once we eliminate the mind and mental factors of cyclic existence, we attain the mind and mental factors of the Buddha-stage. In this process, there is no attainment of Buddhahood; there are only the five aggregates that first cease and then arise. Following the same kind of reasoning, the Buddhist scriptures say: “[One] rejects impermanent form and selects permanent form. Feeling, perception, volition and consciousness [can be understood] in the same way.” 200

[HBJ 1.805c18, WSC 543]

若據相續門簡其自性者、心非惑性不在所斷。雖被他染、性淨故。猶如濁水澄自性故。如瑜伽說。 「問。染心生時、自性染故。爲相應故。爲隨眠故。答。相應故、隨眠故。非自性故。由彼自性不染汚故、說心生時自性淸淨故。」 (T 1579.30.601b19–23.)

If we investigate the nature of the mind from the standpoint of continuity, those aspects of the mind that are not afflicted do not undergo elimination. Although the mind undergoes contamination from external sources, its own nature is pure. It is like muddy water, which the nature of which is pure. As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

Question: When the defiled mind appears, is it because its own nature is defiled? Or because of its association [with external conditions]? Or because of latent tendencies?

Answer: It is because of its association [with external conditions], and because of latent tendencies. It is not due to its own nature. [806a] Since its own nature has no impurity, we say that when the mind arises, its own nature is pure. (T 1579.30.601b19–23)

[HBJ 1.806a2, WSC 543]

又問。 「諸法誰相應。爲何義故建立相應。答。他性相應、非自性。爲遍了知依自性淸淨心。有染不染法、若增若滅。是故建立。」 [T 1579.30.608c29–609a2.] 若依此門、不淨位中八識心王離諸染數終至佛地。卽與四種淨智相應。依此義故佛經中說。  凡有心者、當得菩提。  [T 374.12.524c8–9.]

Again, the question is asked:

Question: With which dharmas is it associated? And based upon what kind of reasoning is this association posited?

Answer: It is based on association with other natures, not on its own nature. Pervasive complete understanding is dependent upon the pure mind in its own nature. Based on the presence of defiled and undefiled dharmas, mental purity sometimes increases and sometimes decreases. Therefore this association is posited. (T 1579.30.608c29–609a2)

[806a] If we rely on this interpretation, then in impure stages the mind-kings 201 of the eight consciousnesses separate from all kinds of impure factors, and finally attain Buddhahood. Hereupon, these consciousnesses become associated with the four kinds of purified cognition. It is based on this kind of reasoning that the scriptures say: “Those who possess mind will attain enlightenment.” (T 374.12.524c8–9) The Identification of that which is Eliminated from the Perspective of Activity and Quelling

[HBJ 1.806a8, WSC 546]

二據起伏定所斷 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]者。通相而說、纏及隨眠皆是所伏、竝爲所斷。約近而論、纏是所伏而非正斷。唯其隨眠正爲所斷。如顯揚論云。 「永害隨眠說煩惱斷。」 [T 1602.31.486a22.]故。

Generally speaking, both the actively binding afflictions and the latent afflictions are quelled, and are also eliminated. But if we examine closely, the actively binding afflictions are quelled, but are not truly eliminated. It is only the latent afflictions that are properly eliminated. As the Xianyang lun says: “The permanent disabling of the latent [afflictions] is called the elimination of afflictions.” (T 1602.31.486a22) The Identification of that which is Eliminated in from the Standpoint of General and Specific

[HBJ 1.806a12, WSC 547]

三約通別定所斷者。一往而言、通別二執皆是所斷。窮而說之、其別相惑正是所斷、亦爲所治。如斷病本亦名治病故。通相法執唯是所治、而非所斷。由其亦解亦 [HBJ includes one more instance of here.]執、非一向惑故。唯修治令得淸淨。喩如治不淨鏡令成明淨。但名治鏡、不言斷鏡故。

Generally speaking, both the general and specific aspects of the two attachments are eliminated. Strictly speaking, the afflictions of the specific aspects are properly eliminated, but are also quelled. For example, eliminating the cause of a disease is also called “quelling the disease.” The attachments to dharmas in the general sense are only quelled, and are not eliminated. This is because they are sometimes released, sometimes attached to, and they are not always afflictive. It is only through cultivation of corrective practices that they are purified. It is like polishing a corroded mirror and making it bright and shiny. This is only called “polishing the mirror.” It is not called “eliminating the mirror.” The Identification of that which is Eliminated According to the Time

[HBJ 1.806a19, WSC 548]


I will first introduce the three times and then explain how these relate to what is eliminated. If we want to fully elaborate the characteristics of the three times, we can basically articulate their distinctions in nine units. The nine are: (1) the past of the past; (2) the future of the past; (3) the present of the past; (4) the past of the future; (5) the present of the future; (6) the future of the future; (7) the future of the present; (8) the past of the present, and (9) the present of the present.

花嚴經言。 「菩薩有十種說三世。何等爲十。所謂 過去世說過去世、過去世說未來世、過去世說現在世、未來世說過去世、未來世說現在世、未來世說無盡世、現在世說未來世、現在世說過去世、現在世說平等。現在世說三世卽一念。是謂菩薩十種說三世。」 [T 279.10.281b24–29.]因此十種說三世 故卽能普說一切三世。

As the Flower Ornament Sutra 202 says:

Bodhisattvas have ten ways of explaining the three times. What are the ten? They are the past explaining the past; the past explaining the future; the past explaining the present; the future explaining the past; the future explaining the present; the future explaining inexhaustible time; the present explaining the future; the present explaining the past; the present explaining equality; the present explaining all three times as a single thought-moment. This is what is known as the bodhisattvas’ explanation of the three times. (T 279.10.281b24–29)

Based on this analysis of the three times, we are able to universally explain all kinds of [relationships] of the three times.

[HBJ 1.806b1, WSC 550]

此中第六說無盡者、爲顯諸法未來未來、無後邊義。故名無盡。第九中言說平等者、欲明此中現在現在。望前過去現在、望後未來現在。其現起相等無差別。不由今現更增現相故、約今現說其平等。最後句中、言三世卽一念者、此 一言內略有二義。

[806b] Here, when the sixth is called “[the future explaining] inexhaustible, [time]” it means the future of the future of all dharmas, implying no subsequent limit. Therefore it is called “inexhaustible.” In the ninth item, the term “equality” seeks to give expression to the meaning of “present of the present.” From the perspective of prior it is the present of the past, and from the perspective of after it is the present of the future. But at the time they are active, they are equal without distinction. Since one, based on this present moment, cannot further add characteristics of the present, in relation to the present, it is called “equal.” In the final part, the phrase that says “all [three] times as a single thought-moment,” contains two basic kinds of meanings.

[HBJ 1.806b14, WSC 551]

一者、雖於現法說有過未世、然過去 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]不在現過已後。未來不居未現之前。但於現在一念之內。望前爲未來、望後爲過去。當其自相說爲現在、破小乘未現之時、冥在未來。現滅已後、伏居過去。過去是現念之後、未來是現念前。故言說三世唯一念也。

The first meaning is that even though a present dharma is said to have past and future, its past does not exist subsequent to the past of the present. Its future does not abide prior to the present of the future. It is existent only within this single thought-moment of the present. Looking forward is the future, and looking backward is the past. The explanation of its own characteristics as being the present is done to refute the present of the future as understood by the adherents of the Lesser Vehicle, who conflate the present of the future with the [simple] future. After the present disappears, quelling abides in the past. The past is the subsequent of the present moment, and the future is the prior of the present moment. Therefore it is said that the three times are only a single thought-moment.

[HBJ 1.806b21, WSC 552]

二者、如前九句所說三世、總攝一切無邊三世。如是三世長遠無邊、皆入現在一念之頃。或彼三世卽是一念、故言三世卽一念也。雖長遠劫卽是一念、而非成短方爲 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]一念。雖卽一念是無量劫、而非刹那究竟長遠。故彼偈言。 「無量無數劫卽是一念頃、亦不令劫 [ is corrected to .]短竟究刹那法。」 [T 278.9.610a12–14.]

The second meaning is like that of the three times in the original nine-part explanation, which comprehensively includes all unlimited [combinations of] the three times. In this meaning, the three times, which are limitlessly great in length, all enter into the single moment of the present. Some think that these three times are the same as this one moment, [806c] and therefore they say the three times are just one moment. Even if it is a vastly long eon, it is still [nothing but] this single moment; but this perspective does not consider its aspect of shortness as being contained in this single moment. Even though one moment is the same as innumerable eons, there is no momentariness in this long period. Therefore a verse [from the Flower Ornament Sutra] says: “Although innumerable and limitless eons are but one swift thought-moment, you cannot squeeze an eon into the most infinitesimal period of time.” (T 278.9.610a12–14)

[HBJ 1.806c5, WSC 553]


This interpretation is intended to refute the one-sided attachment by adherents of the Great Vehicle who say that the future does not yet exist, [that] the past is already gone 203 , that “all single moments are quickly cut off, and the eons of the three times are long.” Therefore it is said that the three times are nothing but a single thought-moment. Even though ten categories of the three times were explained above, when we elaborate the distinctions in time, they actually do not exceed the above nine categories. Therefore I will explain the determination of what is eliminated in terms of these nine. Within these nine times, when are afflictions eliminated?


There is no elimination in the three times of the past. This is because once the corrective paths are activated, these [times] have already vanished. There is also no elimination in the three times of the present. This is because at the time the corrective paths are activated, there are no active afflictions. The future of the future also has nothing to be corrected, since once the paths of elimination have been activated, their characteristics are not renewed. The past of the future also has no elimination, since once the paths of elimination have been activated, their energy is not sufficient to the task. It is the present of the future in which elimination proper occurs.

[HBJ 1.806c14, WSC 555]

所爲以 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]然者。設於此時治道不生。卽於此時隨眠當現。當現、正是未來現在。由於此念治道現前、於此隨眠當現應成。而永不成說名爲斷。是故未來現在正被所斷。其餘八世非正所斷。如顯揚論云。 「未來現在煩惱可斷。永害隨眠名煩惱斷。」 [T 1602.31.496b26]故。

Why is this the case? Let’s say that at this time the purifying paths were not activated. In this case, the latent afflictions will manifest at this time. “Will manifest” indicates the present of the future. In the moment that the purifying paths are directly manifested, the latent afflictions should be appearing taking complete form. Yet they do not take complete form, and so they are said to be eliminated. Therefore it is the present of the future in which they actually undergo elimination. The remaining eight times are inapplicable for the undergoing of elimination. As the Xianyang lun says: “The afflictions can be eliminated in the present of the future. Permanent incapacitation of their latencies is called elimination of afflictions.” (T 1602.31.496b26)

[HBJ 1.806c21, WSC 556]


Even though based on this explanation they are eliminated in this way, if we fully investigate this elimination it is also unattainable. Why? At the time the purifying paths are activated, from the perspective of the latent afflictions, in the present of the future they are both existent and non-existent. [807a] If they are still existent, then they are not eliminated; if they are already non-existent, then there is nothing to be eliminated. If, in the present of the future they are subsequently non-existent due to their elimination in accord with two reasons [explained above], then it means that before their elimination in the present of the future, they were existent. [To say that] only in this one moment of the present of the future they previously exist, and are subsequently non-existent does not make sense, since, within the instant of time there is no before or after. [On the other hand,] to say that in this single moment of the present of the future they are both existent and non-existent also does not make sense, because a single dharma can’t have two natures.

[HBJ 1.807a6, WSC 556]

由此道理故無可斷、是卽一切三世並非所斷。但是治道自性解脫、逕歷三世恒離繫縛。是故得說通斷三世。如瑜伽說。 「問。斷隨眠時爲去、未來、現。答。非斷去末今。然說斷三世。」 [T 1579.30.623b20–24, abridged] 乃至廣說故。定所斷竟。

Based on this reasoning, there is nothing that to be eliminated, and therefore there is nothing eliminated throughout the three times. However, the purifying paths are liberative in their nature throughout the three times, constantly separating from the actively binding afflictions. Therefore it can be said that elimination occurs throughout all three times. As the Yogâcārabhūmi says:

Question: Does the elimination of the latent hindrances occur in the past, future, or present?

Answer: The elimination does not occur in the past, future, or present. Yet it is said that elimination occurs in the three times... (T 1579.30.623b20–24, abridged)

and so forth. . . The section on the identification of what is eliminated ends here.

2.5.3. Distinctions in Quelling and Eliminating

[HBJ 1.807a11, WSC 558]

三明治斷差別者、略有三句。一伏斷差別、二斷縛差別、三離繫差別。伏斷差別者。何謂爲伏。離諸惑緣、修其對治。加惑本上、令末 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]不起。損伏之義、當知亦爾。損伏差別有其三種。一遠離損伏。謂如愛持禁戒遠離惡緣。由是勢力不起惡故。二厭惡損伏。謂以聞思二惠知諸欲過、於彼過患修厭逆想。由是勢力不起着故。三奢摩他損伏。謂由世間修惠、欣上厭下、隨其品別修假對治。隨其所斷不現起故。

There are three main parts to this discussion: (1) the distinctions between quelling and eliminating; (2) the distinctions in elimination of fetters; (3) the distinctions in release from the bondages. The Distinctions between Quelling and Eliminating

What is the meaning of “quelling” 伏? Free from the conditions of the afflictions, one cultivates antidotes. At the level above the root of the afflictions, one stifles 204 the arising of their branches. The meaning of “stifling” should also be understood in this way. There are three kinds of stifling:

(1) Stifling in the sense of separation. This is like the case where one attentively maintains the prohibitions and precepts and thereby separates from unwholesome conditions. Based on this energy, one stifles the arising of evil.

(2) Stifling due to disillusionment 厭惡. This means that through the two kinds of wisdom derived from learning and reflection, one is aware of excessive desire and becomes disgusted with these excesses. Based on this energy, one avoids creating attachments.

(3) Stifling [through the practice] of calming meditation. This means that the through the conventional wisdom gained by practice, one longs for the higher things and grows weary of the lower things, and according to distinctions in subtlety of the afflictions, cultivates provisional corrective practices. Accordingly, those that are eliminated do not become active. 205

[HBJ 1.807a22, WSC 561]

於中委曲如瑜伽說所言斷者、有三差別。「一者伏斷、二者永斷。」 [T 1579.30.675b6–7 (paraphrase).] 其第三者、無餘滅斷。言伏斷者、譬如於石所加草根。更以利鋤秤 [Using WSC’s 鋤秤 instead of HBJ’s 釼枰.]斷其根、永令不能生。其外莖根未滅故說名爲伏。根不續故亦名爲斷。如是已離欲人入見道時、斷於欲界、修斷種子。此等一切皆名伏斷。以未滅故、勢用無續故。

This can be understood in further detail through the explanation in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, which, in explaining the meaning of “elimination” gives three types. [807b]“The first is quelling elimination; the second is permanent elimination, 206 and the third is the elimination of eradication without residue. The meaning of quelling elimination is like the case of grasses and roots that grow on a large rock. If you scrape off the roots with a sharp hoe, they will never be able to grow again. But since the stems outside of the rock have not been eradicated, it is called ‘quelling.’ Yet because the roots have lost their connection [with the earth], they are also said to be ‘eliminated.’”

In the same way, when the person who has separated himself from desire enters into the Path of Seeing, he eliminates afflictions in the desire realm, working toward the elimination of seeds. These kinds of practices are all called “quelling elimination.” Although the afflictions are not yet totally eradicated, they have been rendered impotent.

[HBJ 1.807b5, WSC 561]


The meaning of permanent elimination is like that of grain being cooked in a kettle. Although grain that is taken out of the kettle does not lose its cereal characteristics, due to its having been cooked, it can never again germinate. This [kind of elimination] should be understood as being applicable to the [practices that] eliminate seeds from the stage of the adamantine concentration down to those of the adherents of the two vehicles. Since one is separated from nescience, there is no loss of the characteristics in the ripening consciousness. Overcome by the energy of uncontaminated dharmas, they will never again be able to create seeds. Therefore this is called permanent elimination.

瑜伽說。 「略有二種、於斷作證。一於種子伏斷作證、二於種子永斷作證。」 [T 1579.30.675b6–7.]故。然此永斷、望無餘斷、但爲永伏、未成永斷。

As the Yogâcārabhūmi says: “There are two basic kinds of realization through elimination: one is the realization through the quelling elimination of seeds; the second is the realization through the permanent elimination of seeds.” (T 1579.30.675b6–7) Yet this permanent elimination, when seen from the perspective of elimination-without-residue, would actually only be permanent quelling, as one has, [from that perspective,] not yet [truly] accomplished permanent elimination.

[HBJ 1.807b13, WSC 561]


The meaning of the elimination of eradication without residue is like that of the conflagration at the end of the universe, where [the great fire] blazes continuously for seven days, thoroughly consuming the heavens, the oceans and the continents, annihilating them without a trace. In the end, even the tiniest particles are completely extinguished, with nothing whatsoever left over. Similarly, when the three great eons of practice are completed, the four kinds of purified cognitive faculties 207 simultaneously appear, perfectly reflecting the realm of existence, and the vast ocean of the ālayavijñāna and the continent of nescience are extinguished without a trace. In the end, even the most subtle habit energies of the two hindrances are completely extinguished with nothing whatsoever left over. Therefore this is called the elimination of extinction without residue. This is how the three kinds of elimination are distinguished. ++++The Distinctions in the Elimination of the Fetters

[HBJ 1.807b20, WSC 565]


There are two kinds of fetters, which are called fettering by association [with the mind] and fettering by objects. They both act in tandem with a single affliction, binding the minds of sentient beings. What are they? When the afflictions are associated with the mind for a period of time, they are able to restrict it, preventing it from being free. [807c] Hence the term “fettering by association [with the mind].” Then, when these afflictions attach to the objects around them, they lead the mind to come under their control. This is called fettering by objects. It is like taking a single rope and attaching it to an ox. Once the ox is thoroughly bound, it cannot free itself. Then the other end of the rope is tied to a post, resulting in the ox’s binding to the post. The restriction of the mind by the two [kinds of] fetters should be understood in this way.

[HBJ 1.807c4, WSC 565]


The elimination of these two fetters actually occurs simultaneously—in terms of order, there is neither prior nor subsequent. Why? If we ask the Mind King: “King, in what sort of conditions in regard to the surrounding objects may we gain freedom from attachments?” The Mind would answer saying: “There is the single Mental Factor of Wisdom, which is instantaneously able to sever the fetters that are associated with the self, and hence there is no longer attachment to the objects.” Yet one is not aware for oneself what was severed. If we ask the Factor of Wisdom: “Through what skill is the fettering through association severed?” The Factor of Wisdom explains, saying: “I have no special technique. It is merely my natural intelligence that obliterates the coarse marks, and brings lasting freedom from the attachment to the marks [upon which the mind] is contingent.” Based on this, I am able to cut off their associated dharmas. According to the explanation by the Mental Factor of Wisdom, one first severs the fettering by objects and then severs the fettering of association [with to mind].

[HBJ 1.807c12, WSC 566]

依此義故 顯揚論云。 「斷所從者、謂從所緣境斷諸煩惱。於所緣境斷煩惱已、諸相應法亦復隨斷。」 [T 1602.31.496b24–26.]

It is based on this reasoning that the Xianyang lun says: “‘Elimination of that which is accompanying’ means to eliminate afflictions by [severing the binding to] objects. Once the afflictions of the objective realm are eliminated, all the associated factors are also accordingly eliminated.” (T 1602.31.496b24–26)

若依心王言、先離相應縛、後離所縛。依此義故 瑜伽論說。 「復次從相應及所緣故、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。相應斷已不復緣境故、從所緣亦說名斷。」 [T 1579.30.628c11–14.]故。斷二縛義應如是知。

According to the explanation of the Mind King then, one first separates from the fettering of association [with mind], and then separates from the fetters to the objective realm. It is with this kind of reasoning that the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

It is [by severing the] association [with mind] and association with objects that the afflictions are to be eliminated. Why? Once the antidotes are applied, the afflictions do not arise, and one attains the realization of the non-arising of phenomena. Therefore it is called the severing of fettering by association [with mind]. Once the fettering by association [with mind] has been severed, one no longer perceives objects, and so the object-connecting fetters are also said to be severed. (T 1579.30.628c11–14)

The meaning of severing the two kinds of fetters should be understood like this. The Distinctions in Release from the Bondages

[HBJ 1.807c21, WSC 567]


Third is the clarification of the release from the bondages. There are two kinds of bondages. What are they? The first is the bondage according to type that is incurred from the two fetters. This is the same as explained just above. The second is the case where one can be subject to many categories of bondages. What does this mean? As when one is subjected to affliction, there are nine levels in al. The greatest of the greatest mind and mental factors can be fettered by conditioning from all nine categories. [808a] It is just like a single post being made the object of attachment by nine ropes. As the greatest of the greatest are subject to nine kinds of binding, the other eight categories also undergo the same binding. This is because these nine categories are all capable of binding with each other, and because whenever they remain in their latent state, they tend to have an affinity for each other.

[HBJ 1.808a4, WSC 570]


There are two kinds of release from the bondages. The first is the individual release from the binding of the two classes of bondage. The next is categorical release from the binding of one bondage.

What is categorical release from binding? Even though one severs the two kinds of fetters of the first category, one can still be subject to fettering by the other eight categories. And even if one has already severed the eight categories of the two fetters, the mind of these eight categories that is still bound receives the fettering of the one class. Therefore one has not been released from the fettering of the prior eight. Therefore you cannot call it complete severing. Once one completely severs the ninth class of the two fetters, one is released from the prior eight and this ninth simultaneously. Therefore it is called categorical escape from the bondage.

如一蘆束繫以九听。雖斷八听而未離散。斷第九繫一時離散。相屬離繫當知亦爾。如瑜伽說 [The six characters provided here in the WSC: 如瑜伽説當知 are not contained in the HBJ version.] 「當知離繫亦有二種。一於諸煩惱品別離繫。二於諸煩惱事相屬離繫。」 [T 1579.30.675b7–9.]故。治斷差別竟。

It is like the case of a single bundle of reeds that is tied up with nine strings. Even if you cut eight strings, it will still not come loose. Once you cut the ninth string, all will come loose at once. Categorical escape from the fetters should be understood just like this. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “You should understand that there are two kinds of escape from the fetters. The first is escaping individually from the fetters of the various classes of affliction. The second is categorically escaping from the bonds of affliction.” (T 1579.30.675b7–9)

The section on the distinctions in the quelling and elimination of the afflictions ends here.

2.5.4. Correction and Elimination in the Various Levels [of Practitioners] From the Approach of the Non-sameness of Purity and Impurity

[HBJ 1.808a15, WSC 573]

四明治斷階位者。惣有三種。一明凡夫、二辨二乘、三說菩薩 諸。

Fourth is the explanation of the levels of correction and elimination. There are three main contexts in which correction and elimination are explained: (1) within the [practices of] worldlings; (2) within [the practices of] the two vehicles, and (3) within [the practices of] the bodhisattvas. Correction and Elimination at the Stage of Worldling


The mundane corrective practices in the stage of worldling only quell the afflictions eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, as well as treat their debilitating tendencies—from the level of the three levels of apprehending emptiness downward. But these practices are not able to remove the seeds of these afflictions. Beyond this, there are no other hindrances that they are able to eliminate. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

「若諸異生離欲界欲、或色界欲、但由修道、無有見道。彼於欲界得離欲時、貪欲、瞋恚、及彼隨法鄰近憍慢。若諸煩惱相應無明不現行、故皆說名斷。非如見道所斷薩迦耶見等。由彼諸惑住此身中、從定起已有時現行、非生上者彼復現起。如是異生離色界欲、如其所應除瞋恚、餘煩惱、當知亦爾。」 [T 1579.30.625b8–14.]故。若諸末那相應四惑、雖是修斷、極微細故、世間修道所未能伏。

If all worldlings would like to escape the desire of the desire realm, or the desire of the form realm, they can rely only on the Path of Cultivation, and not on the Path of Seeing. Once they attain freedom from the desire of the desire realm [they also attain freedom from] craving, ill will, and the closely following factor of pride. If the nescience that is associated with all the afflictions does not manifest, all [these afflictions] are said to be eliminated. This is not like the case of the [afflictions] eliminated with the view of entities and so forth that happens in the Path of Seeing. Since these afflictions [still] abide in this body will eventually manifest due to their predilection to activate, and as long as one has not passed beyond this life they will rearise. In the same way, it should be understood that when these worldlings become free from the desires of the form realm, they will at the same time remove anger and the other afflictions. (T 1579.30.625b8–14)

[808b] As for the four afflictions that are associated with the manas, even though these are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, they are so extremely subtle that the mundane Path of Cultivation is not able to quell them. Antidotes in the Level of the Two Vehicles The Explicit Perspective

(a) Hindrances Produced by the Six Liminal Consciousnesses

[HBJ 1.808b5, WSC 576]

次明二乘治道位者。此有二義。若就人法二執本末相依生門、一切二乘於煩惱障、唯是折伏而非永斷。所以然者、無廣大心不證法空。由是不拔煩惱本故。如其直當人執之內纏及隨眠相生門者、皆是永斷而非伏斷。由證人空所顯眞如、永害人執等種子故。彌勒所問論云。 「一切聲聞辟支佛人不能如實修四無量、不能究竟斷諸煩惱。但能折伏一切煩惱。」 [T 1525:26.265b18–21.] 此依初門作是說也。

Next is the explanation of the antidotes applied in the level of the two vehicles. There are two interpretations here. If we look at the matter from the perspective that the two attachments to person and to dharmas support the production of each other from beginning to end, then the adherents of the two vehicles only subdue the afflictive hindrances but do not permanently eliminate them. 208 This is because they lack a boundless mind, and do not realize the selflessness of dharmas . Hence, they do not remove the root of the afflictions.

If one approaches the matter directly from the perspective of mutual production of the active and latent hindrances derived from the attachment to person, then they are all permanently eliminated, rather than only quelled. Through the thusness that is manifested in the realization of the selflessness of person, one permanently disables the seeds of the category of attachment to person. As the Mile suowen lun says: “The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are unable to truly cultivate the four kinds of immeasurable mental states, 209 and so are not able to completely eliminate all afflictions. They are able only to subdue all afflictions.” (T 1525:26.265b18–21) This explains the first interpretation.

[HBJ 1.808b14, WSC 576]

瑜伽說。 「若聖弟子由出世道、離欲界欲乃至具得離三界欲、爾時一切染法種子皆悉永害。如穀麥等諸外種子安置空迥、或於乾器。雖不生芽 [Using Taishō/WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .] 非不種子。若火所損、爾時畢竟不成種子。損伏永害道理亦爾。」 [T 1579.30.584a2–10 (abridged).] 此依後門而作是說。

Furthermore, the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

If, based on the supramundane paths, the sagely śrāvakas free themselves from the desire of the desire realm, and proceed to attain simultaneous emancipation from the desire of all three realms, then at that time all the seeds of defiled states are without exception permanently impaired. It is comparable to the case of the seeds of various types of grain kept in atmospheric suspension, or in a dry container. Even if the seeds cannot germinate in this circumstance, they have nonetheless not lost their capacity to do so. But if they are scorched by fire, then they can no longer germinate. The interpretation of the notions of quelling and permanent impairment can be understood to be like this. (T 1579.30.584a2–10; abridged)

This clarifies the second interpretation.

[HBJ 1.808b21, WSC 579]

由是二門伏斷永斷皆不相違、今且依永斷明其階降。斷見惑者、有其三人。若從具縛入見道者。斷見惑已證預流果。倍離欲人入見道者、兼斷倍欲證一來果。已離欲人入見道者、兼斷九品惑、證不還果。如瑜伽說。 「入見道者、有其三 [HBJ’s obvious error of is corrected to .]種。隨其所應證三果。」 [Based on T 1579.30.436b14.]故。

Since these two teachings of “quelling elimination” and “permanent elimination” are not contradictory, I will now explain their gradations from the perspective of permanent elimination. There are three types of persons who eliminate the afflictions of views [in the Path of Seeing]. The first are those who enter into the Path of Seeing [directly] from the condition of being enmeshed in afflictions. 210 When they fully eliminate the afflictions in the Path of Seeing, they attain the realization of the stream-winner. Those who enter the Path of Seeing from a condition of greater freedom from desire simultaneously eliminate double the amount of afflictions [in the desire realm], and attain the realization of the once-returner. [808c] When those who have completely freed themselves from desire enter the Path of Seeing, they simultaneously eliminate the afflictions of the nine classes, attaining the realization of the nonreturner. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “There are three kinds [of practitioners] who enter the Path of Seeing, and who, according to their own level, attain three realizations.” 211

[HBJ 1.808c3, WSC 579]


The elimination of afflictions generally happens according to the above-related model, but there are also further distinctions within these general categories. When one eliminates the conceptual afflictions [in the Path of Seeing], there are three kinds of sudden elimination: (1) the use of the one mind to suddenly eliminate the three realms; (2) the use of a single meditation to suddenly eliminate four kinds [of affliction], and (3) the use of one class [of affliction] to suddenly eliminate nine classes.

What is the meaning of using one mind to eliminate three [realms]? Although there are distinctions of coarse and subtle in the mental functioning within the three realms, minor and major errors in regard to the truth are not distinguished according to the realm. Therefore one mind is able to eliminate the [afflictions in] the three realms. What is the meaning of a single meditation suddenly eliminating four [kinds of affliction]? It means that one breaks one’s reliance on conventional truths and focuses one’s mind to thoroughly contemplate the Four Truths and the principle of selflessness. 212 What is the meaning of using one class [of affliction] to suddenly eliminate nine classes? When the one mind in the Path of Seeing counters the ninth class, and eliminates its light [afflictions], the heavy afflictions are consequently annihilated.

[HBJ 1.808c11, WSC 582]

見道旣是最初無漏。所以忽 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]對第九品者。始從煗 [WSC’s is correct, being part of a technical term, so it is used instead of HBJ’s .]煖法修下下觀、迄至見道成上上故。無間道下旣對八品、所以不能斷彼品種子。若不能斷八品種子、何由能生上上品道者。漸捨八品所有麤重、由是能引上上品道者。此皆未證人空眞如故、不能拔彼品種子。

Once one is in the Path of Seeing, this is the first stage of uncontaminated practice. How does one suddenly counter the ninth class [of affliction]? Starting from the stage of warmth 213 one cultivates the contemplation of the least of the least, and continues up until the completion of the greatest of the greatest in the Path of Seeing. In the Instantaneous Path, one has already countered the [lower] eight classes, and so it is no longer possible to eliminate the seeds of those classes. But if one is not able to eliminate the seeds of the [lower] eight classes, how can one produce the greatest of the greatest practices? Gradually removing the debilitating afflictions of the eight classes, one is able to induce the greatest of the greatest practices. But since none of these yet include the realization of the thusness of the selflessness of person, one is unable to remove the seeds of these categories.

[HBJ 1.808c18, WSC 582]

由是道理三乘聖人初入聖道並是頓斷九品種子。非謂對麤品道。雖 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]斷餘細品惑、亦非唯一品。道猛利故、對九品。修道位中乘前勢力、漸修方便卽入增品。不須如前多品加行故、於修惑隨品漸斷。非謂修惑纏綿難斷故、不一時頓斷九品。

It is from this perspective that the sages of the Three Vehicles simultaneously eliminate the nine classes of seeds when they first enter the holy paths. This is not to be interpreted as a path that treats the coarse classes [of afflictions]. And even though one eliminates the remaining subtle classes of afflictions, these are not only of a single class. Since their Path [of Seeing] is extremely powerful, one counters nine classes. In the stage of the Path of Cultivation, riding on the momentum [from the practices] of the prior path, one gradually cultivates skillful means and directly enters into the practices that remove higher classes [of afflictions]. Since it is not necessary to have, as earlier, the applied practices aimed at numerous classes, one gradually eliminates the innate afflictions [in the Path of Cultivation] according to their individual class. This does not mean that it is because the innate afflictions are tightly bound and difficult to eliminate that one does not suddenly eliminate all nine classes at one time.

[HBJ 1.809a1, WSC 584]

後二種人所以能斷修惑種子者。見道之品實不能對修惑之品。是故不能永斷種子。但、此種子先已被伏、今更重加見道利鋤故。於彼種伏斷作證、由是得修彼品治道。於欲界生不復還受、是故賞功加不還位。倍離 [Using WSC’s 倍離 instead of HBJ’s .]欲人准 [HBJ has instead of .]釋可解。超越道理應如是知。

[809a] How are the subsequent two types of practitioners able to eliminate the seeds of the innate afflictions [in the Path of Cultivation]? The practices in the Path of Seeing actually have no ability to counteract the innate afflictions. Therefore they are unable to permanently eliminate these seeds. However, these seeds have already been subdued to a certain degree, and now they once again are subject to the sharp hoe of the Path of Seeing. Therefore in their correction, one attains realization, and based on this, one is able to cultivate antidotes appropriate to this class. One is not subject to rebirth into the realm of desire, which means that one has attained the prize of the stage of nonreturner. The cases of those who are at an advanced degree of freedom from desire can be understood in terms of this. The interpretation of [the application of] supramundane practices should be understood in this way.

[HBJ 1.809a7, WSC 586]


I will next explain the stages of the elimination of innate afflictions [in the Path of Cultivation]. There are two kinds of people who advance to the Path of Cultivation. The first are those who gradually attain freedom, in which case the process is according to the standard explanation. Those in the second group attain freedom suddenly. [In the first case] it means that based on the various dharmas of the three realms, one enters into the uncontaminated paths and gradually counters the nine classes of affliction. In the case of sudden elimination of [the afflictions of] the three realms, one gradually removes the nine classes of afflictions. Here one directly realizes arhatship. “Sudden elimination of the afflictions of the three realms” means that the previously explained categories of light and heavy do not stay aligned with the coarseness and subtlety of their manifest conditions. This being the case, how can there be gradual elimination? It is because the dharmas of the three realms are not suddenly conditioned.

[HBJ 1.809a14, WSC 586]


As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

「頓出離者、謂入諦現觀已、依止未至定、發出世道、頓斷三界一切煩惱。品品別斷唯立二果。謂預流果、阿羅漢果。 此義以何爲證。如指端經說。「諸所有色 乃至識、若過去未來現在、若遠若近惣此一切、略爲一分一團、一積、一聚。如是略已、應觀一切皆是無常、一切皆苦。」乃至廣說。又、依此故、如來於分別經中、預流果無間卽建立阿羅漢果。」 [T 1606.31.756b9–25. (abridged). This entire citation is from the *Abhidharma-samuccaya. I have not been able to locate a Sutra of Pointing to the Limits, and have not found this discussion in the Sutra of Ānanda’s Discriminations.] 故。

Sudden liberation means that having entered into the contemplation of the truths, one depends on the practices prior to the attainment of the first concentration to bring oneself onto the holy paths that suddenly eliminate all the afflictions of the three realms. Separately eliminating the afflictions class by class results in the attainment of only two of the realizations of the śrāvakas: those of stream-winner and arhat. How is this doctrine verified? As the Zhiduan jing says: “All form, [and the other aggregates,] up to consciousness, whether past, future or present; whether far or near; can without exception be summarized into a single part, a single group, a single heap, a single aggregate. Once we have done this, we should observe all without exception to be impermanent, and all without exception to be suffering.” 214 and so forth. It is based on the same idea that the Tathāgata, in the Fenbie jing, says that the stream-winner instantaneously produces the realizationt of the arhat. (T 1606.31.756b9–25 (abridged).) 215

[HBJ 1.809a24, WSC 589]

上來所明治斷差別、是說六識所起煩惱。若其末那相應四惑行相、與品最爲微細、於三界中等無差別。是故唯離非想欲時一時頓斷。如瑜伽說。 「末那相應任運煩惱。」 [T 1579.30.651c15.] 「唯離非想處欲故、一時頓斷。非如餘惑、漸次而斷。」 [T 1579.30.652a2–4.]

(b) Afflictions Associated with the Manas

The above explanation of the distinctions in subjugation and elimination has all been carried out in the context of the afflictions that are produced by the sixth consciousness. [809b] If we discuss the functions of the four afflictions that are associated with the manas, they are the most extremely subtle in type, and they function equally without distinction throughout the three realms. Therefore, it is only when one is free from non-conceptual desire that one suddenly eliminates them. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “The innate afflictions that are bound with the manas (T 1579.30.651c15) [...] are liberated only through freedom from desire in the state of neither-thought-nor-no-thought; hence they are suddenly eliminated in a single instant. They are not like the other afflictions, which are gradually eliminated.” (T 1579.30.652a2–4)

[HBJ 1.809b5, WSC 589]

無相論云。 「第二執識及相應法、至羅漢位究竟滅盡。若見諦害 [For HBJ’s WSC has ; Taishō has ; which we follow here. also seems possible. The argument for can also be supported retained here based on the fact that 實煩惱 is a technical term contained in T 1566.]煩惱、識及心法得出世道。十六心時畢竟斷滅。餘殘未盡、但屬思惟。」 [T 1587.31.62a14–20.] 是名第二執識、此中簡別二種斷義。若意識中實煩惱者、十六心時皆悉斷盡。故屬見諦。此第二識彼斷所餘、唯羅漢位方究竟滅。是故此識但屬思惟也。

The Treatise on Signlessness says:

The second appropriating consciousness (the manas) and its associated dharmas are completely annihilated upon attaining arhatship. If the seeing of the truths disables 216 the afflictions, then the consciousness and mental factors will attain the supramundane path. During the practices of the sixteen mental states, 217 they are finally annihilated. The only hindrances that remain unextinguished are those under the category of thought [i.e., those eliminated in the Path of Cultivation]. (T 1587.31.62a14–20)

This is called the second appropriating consciousness. Here we have two interpretations of elimination. If they are the substantial afflictions within the sixth consciousness, then during the practices of the sixteen mental states all will be completely extinguished. Therefore they belong to the categories [to be eliminated by] seeing the truths. The remainder of the afflictions to be eliminated from this second consciousness are totally annihilated only in the attainment of arhatship. Therefore those [hindrances in] this consciousness are only in the category of thought [and thus eliminated in the Path of Cultivation].

[HBJ 1.809b13, WSC 591]]

依此等文故知末那非見所斷。是明二乘斷煩惱障。所知障中有斷不斷。惠解脫人都無所斷。倶解脫者分有所斷。謂八解脫障不染無知修八勝解所對治故。如瑜伽說。 「又、諸解脫由所知障解脫所顯。由是聲聞及獨覺等於所知障心得解脫。」 [T 1579.30.645c10–11.]故。

Based on these passages, we know that the afflictions of the manas are not eliminated in the Path of Seeing. This shows that the adherents of the two vehicles do [fully] eliminate the afflictive hindrances.

When it comes to the cognitive hindrances, there are some that the two-vehicle practitioners eliminate and some that they do not eliminate. The arhats who are liberated through wisdom-only do not eliminate any. Those who are liberated through the combined practice [of meditation and wisdom] are able to remove some. This means that the undefiled nescience that hinders the eight kinds of liberation is to be countered by the cultivation of the eight kinds of verification. As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says: “Furthermore, liberation is manifested through the liberation from the cognitive hindrances. Based on this, the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas attain liberation from the mental states of the cognitive hindrances.” (T 1579.30.645c10–11) The Inexplicit Perspective

[HBJ 1.809b19, WSC 591]

上來所說、是顯了門斷心相應起煩惱義。若論隱蜜門內住地煩惱一切二乘分有所斷。此義云何。三界住地及通相無明如是有愛取 [HBJ has after .]數四住地。在見道位斷其少分。於三界中迷事境邊、於此位中未能斷故。是故於中唯斷少分。

What has been explained up to here is the interpretation of the active afflictions associated with mind that are eliminated from the Explicit perspective. If we discuss the entrenched afflictions from the Inexplicit perspective, then the adherents of the two vehicles are able to only partially eliminate them. What does this mean? The entrenchments of the three realms and broadly interpreted nescience constitute four inherent afflictions of emotion toward existence. While in the stage of the Path of Seeing, one eliminates a small portion of these. That is, when one is at this stage, one is not yet capable of eliminating the range of objects of confusion in regard to phenomena. Therefore, at this point, one eliminates only a small portion.

[HBJ 1.809c1, WSC 591]

(勝鬘)經言。 「聲聞緣覺初觀聖諦、以一智斷諸住地。以一智四斷。」 [T 353.12.221a20–21.]故。至羅漢位、有愛數四住地斷之已盡。如言。 「非聲聞緣覺不斷無明住地。以無二聖諦智斷諸住地。」 [T 353.12.221a24–25.]故。

[809c] As the [Śrīmālā-]sūtra says: “When the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas first contemplate the holy truths, they eliminate all entrenchments with a single type of wisdom. With a single type of wisdom they eliminate four.” (T 353.12.221a20–21) Therefore, at the attainment of the level of arhat, the four entrenchments of emotion toward existence are completely eliminated. As that sūtra says: “If one is not a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha, one cannot eliminate the entrenchment of nescience. It is by means of the nondualistic cognition of the holy truths that all entrenchments are eliminated.” (T 353.12.221a24–25) The Stages of Elimination in the Bodhisattva Path Explicit and Inexplicit Perspectives

[HBJ 1.809c5, WSC 594]

三就菩薩明斷位者。亦有二義。若依隱蜜門中本末 [Using WSC’s 本末 instead of HBJ’s .]相生義者、金剛已還一切菩薩於諸煩惱但能伏斷、未能永斷。所以然者。於一法界、唯信、未見、不能拔諸惑之 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]根本故。

Third is the explanation of elimination from the standpoint of bodhisattvas. Here there are again two kinds of interpretations. If we follow the doctrine of mutual production of roots and branches as seen in the Inexplicit approach, then bodhisattvas from the level of the adamantine concentration downward are only to perform only quelling elimination and not permanent elimination. Why? In regard to the single realm of existence, they only believe [the truths], but do not yet see them, and so they are unable to remove the roots of mental disturbances.

仁王經言。 「從習仁 [ should be .]至金剛三昧、皆悉伏斷一切煩惱以無相信。然滅一切煩惱、生解脫智照第一義諦、不名爲見。所謂見者、是薩婆若。」 [T 245:8.832b7–8.]

As the Sutra for Humane Kings 218 says: “From the practice of the tolerances up to the adamantine concentration, one does quelling elimination of all afflictions, using markless faith. Annihilating all afflictions, one generates the wisdom of liberation, and illuminates the ultimate truth—but this is not called ‘seeing.’ [Here] the term ‘seeing’ means ‘omniscience’ 219 .” (T 245:8.832b7–8)

[HBJ 1.809c12, WSC 594]

夫人經言。 「若無明住地不斷不究竟、過恒沙等所應斷法、不斷不究竟。」 [T 353.12.220b12–13] 故。若依顯了門直說纏及隨眠相生義者、始從初地 [HBJ does not have here.]至無垢地於二障種是皆是永斷。所以然者。雖未能見一法界義、而得證見十重法界故。

The Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “If the entrenchment of nescience is not eliminated and not terminated, then dharmas more numerous than the grains of sand in the Ganges river that should be eliminated will be neither eliminated nor terminated.” (T 353.12.220b12–13) If we see it from the Explicit perspective of the mutual production of active and latent afflictions, then from the first bodhisattva ground up to the stainless [second] ground, the seeds of the two hindrances are all permanently eliminated. Why? Even though one has not yet been able to perceive the implications of the single realm of existence, one has succeeded in actualizing the vision of the tenfold realm of existence.

[HBJ 1.809c17, WSC 596]

惣說雖然、於中分別者、菩薩 [Using WSC’s 菩薩instead of HBJ’s .]有二種。若從二乘無覺果成漸悟菩薩入初地時、唯斷智障非煩惱障。先已斷故。

Although this is generally the case, there are herein two types of bodhisattvas. If, from the time of the completion of the two-vehicle stage of no further application, 220 gradually enlightened bodhisattvas enter the first ground, they eliminate only cognitive hindrances, and not afflictive hindrances. This is because [the afflictive hindrances] have already been eliminated.

楞伽經言。 「智障者、見法無我殊勝淸淨。煩惱障者、先習見人無我、斷七識滅。」 [T 670.16.513a20–22] 故。若其頓悟菩薩三賢位中、但能漸伏二障現行。亦能漸捨見道所斷二障麤重。未斷種子。

As the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra 221 says: “[The elimination of the] hindrances to wisdom occurs through the excellent purity gained through the insight into the selflessness of dharmas . [The elimination of the] afflictive hindrances refers to the earlier cultivation of the view of selflessness of person, which is eliminated in the extinction of the seventh consciousness.” (T 670.16.513a20–22) If they are suddenly enlightened bodhisattvas [who are still] in the three ranks of worthies, 222 they are able only to gradually subjugate the two hindrances in their active manifestations. They are also able to gradually remove the debilitating aspects of the two hindrances that are removed in the Path of Seeing. They have not yet removed their seeds.

[HBJ 1.809c24, WSC 597]

本(業)經言。 「前三賢位伏三界無明而用麤業。何以故。當受生時、善爲緣子、愛 [Using WSC/KT’s instead of HBJ’s .]爲潤 [Using WSC/KT’s instead of HBJ’s .]業。」 故。花嚴經言。 「第四生貴眞佛子。從諸賢聖正法生。有無諸法無所着。捨離生死出三界」 [T 278.9.448a10–11.]者。是就不受繫業三界故爲出。非斷種故、名爲出也。

As the Benye jing says: “[810a] In the prior three ranks of worthies [the bodhisattvas] subdue the nescience of the three realms, yet utilize coarse karma. Why? At the time of rebirth, goodness becomes the children of conditions and attachment nourishes their karma.” (T 1485.24.1016c14–15) Therefore the Flower Ornament Sutra says:

The fourth are the disciples of the Buddha born with nobility

They are born from the correct teachings of the worthies and sages

They do not adhere to either existent or nonexistent dharmas.

Casting off birth-and-death, they escape from the three realms. (T 278.9.448a10–11)

From this perspective, it is because they do not undergo the karmic binding of the three realms that they escape. Since this is not the elimination of seeds, it is called “escape.” Arisen Afflictions

[HBJ 1.810a6, WSC 599]


When one enters the bodhisattva’s Path of Seeing, one suddenly eliminates the two hindrances that are produced from discrimination. Concerning this point, there are five general interpretations of suddenness. Three of these are the same as explained in reference to the Path of Seeing of the two vehicles. The fourth kind of sudden elimination of the two hindrances consists of the simultaneous actualization of the two kinds of selflessness. In the fifth, there is sudden elimination of the two kinds of afflictive hindrances that are removed in the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation. This occurs due to the fact that the bodhisattvas, during their Path of Skillful Means before entering the grounds, already subjugate the afflictions that are to be eliminated in the Path of Seeing that might obstruct their work in helping other sentient beings. So now, when they attain to this Path [of Seeing], they build upon these prior efforts, eliminating afflictions according to the appropriate type [for the Path of Seeing] and attaining realization. For this reason, it is called “sudden elimination.” Unless they are afflictions appropriate for treatment in the Path of Cultivation, they are eliminated permanently.

[HBJ 1.810a14, WSC 600]

彌勒所問論云。 「問。若聲聞人先斷見道所斷煩惱、然後漸斷修道煩惱、菩薩何故不同聲聞。答。菩薩之人無量世來爲諸衆生作利益事、復見眞如甘露法界。觀彼一切諸衆生身而實不異我所求處。是故菩薩見修道中一切煩惱能障利益衆生行故、卽見道中一時倶斷。」 [T 1525:26.239b19–c4 (abridged).]故。

As the Mile suowen lun says:

Question: If śrāvakas first eliminate the afflictions that are eliminated in the Path of Seeing, and then gradually eliminate the afflictions that are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, how do the bodhisattvas differ from the śrāvakas?

Answer : The bodhisattvas have carried out practices for the benefit of sentient beings since countless ages in the past, and have experienced the experiential realms of thusness and immortality. They contemplate the bodies of sentient beings and are aware that these beings in fact are not different from themselves in terms of what they seek. Therefore, all the afflictions in the bodhisattvas paths of Seeing and Cultivation that can impede the practices that bring benefit sentient beings are eliminated by the bodhisattvas at once in their Path of Seeing. (T 1525:26.239b19–c4 (abridged))


Among the mental disturbances that are eliminated in the Path of Cultivation, it is said to be only those of the greatest and middling levels that are able to impede activities aimed at helping sentient beings. The reason the afflictions of lesser strength do not impede the bodhisattvas’ practices is that they are active only from the level of the seventh bodhisattva ground and below. This is the case until one reaches the level of the adamantine concentration, at which point all of the extremely subtle manifestations of the two hindrances are completely extinguished.

[HBJ 1.810b1, WSC 603]

於中分別卽有二行。一者、若據三重二障說斷能緣繫義、唯在三地頓斷二障。其餘下地皆未能斷。但能修習彼斷資糧。以是相屬 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]離繫門故。

[810b] Herein there are two kinds of processes. First, if we interpret the binding conditions from the perspective of the three levels of the two hindrances, their removal occurs only in the sudden elimination of the two hindrances in the third bodhisattva ground. It is not yet possible to eliminate the hindrances in any stage below this. All one can do is cultivate the preparatory practices [that will eventually lead to their elimination]. Therefore, this is the categorical removal of the bondages.

[HBJ 1.810b4, WSC 603]

瑜伽說。 「經三無數大劫時量、能斷二障所有麤重。謂極歡喜住中、一切惡趣諸煩惱品所有麤重皆悉永斷。一切上中諸煩惱品皆不現前。於無加行無功用無相住中、一切能障一向淸淨。無生法忍、諸煩惱品皆悉永斷。一切煩惱皆不現前。於最上成滿菩薩住中、當知一切煩惱、習氣、隨眠、障礙皆悉永斷、入如來地。」

As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

[Only] after passing through three incalculably long eons can one eliminate the debilitating aspects of the two hindrances. More specifically, in the abode of perfect bliss, one permanently eliminates the debilitating afflictions of all evil destinies, completely and without exception. All of the greater and middling afflictions do not appear. In the markless abode with no applied practices and no exertion, 223 all hindrances are thoroughly purified. In the recognition of the birthlessness of dharmas, all classes of affliction are permanently eliminated, and no afflictions whatsoever appear. It should be understood that in the abode of the final consummation of bodhisattvahood, 224 all of the habit energies, latent aspects, and other impediments related to the afflictions are completely and permanently eliminated, and one enters the stage of the Tathāgata.

「所知障者、亦有三種。當知此中在皮 [I use here, following Taishō, which makes sense according to the context. WSC gives , and HBJ has .]麤重極歡喜住皆悉已斷。在膚麤重無加行無功用無相住中、皆悉已斷。在肉麤重如來住中皆悉已斷。得一切種極淸淨智。於三住中煩惱所知二障永斷。所餘諸住如其次第修斷資粮。」 [T 1579.30.562a28–b14.]故。

There are also three kinds of cognitive hindrances. It should be understood that the externally resident debilitating [cognitive] hindrances are completely and permanently eliminated at the abode of perfect bliss. 225 The medially resident debilitating [cognitive] hindrances are completely and permanently eliminated at the markless abode with no applied practices and no exertion. The internally resident debilitating [cognitive] hindrances are completely and permanently eliminated at the abode of the Tathāgata. Here one attains the extremely pure omniscience. In these three stages, the two hindrances of affliction and cognition are permanently eliminated. In the rest of the [earlier] stages, one gradually cultivates the requisite conditions for elimination. (T 1579.30.562a28–b14)

[HBJ 1.810b19, WSC 604]

此中最細所知障、是在阿賴耶識故、唯如來住之所斷。最細惑障唯在轉識故、菩薩住所能斷盡。言習氣者、八地已上永無現行、故言習氣。此是種子習氣、非謂餘殘習氣。是謂相屬 [Throughout the earlier treatment of this category of binding, Wonhyo has used 相屬 and not 相屬.]離繫義也。

Among these, the subtlest of the cognitive hindrances reside in the ālayavijñāna, and therefore they are removed only at the stage of the Tathāgata. The subtlest of the afflictive hindrances reside only in the forthcoming consciousnesses, and therefore they can be completely extinguished at the stage of the bodhisattva. [Hindrances that are] referred to as habit energies are those that are no longer active from the eighth bodhisattva ground up; therefore they are called “habit energies.” These are “seed habit energies” and not “residual habit energies.” This is the explanation of categorical release from bondage.

[HBJ 1.810b23, WSC 607]


Next, if we analyze the elimination of fettering by association from the perspective of the ten levels of the two hindrances in terms of ten grounds, [810c] then there is elimination of both hindrances in every stage. This is the perspective of escaping bondage according to the class. As the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says:

「世尊。於諸地、有幾愚癡、幾麤重爲所對治。善男子。有廿二愚癡、十一麤重爲所對治。謂於初地有二愚癡。一者、執着補特伽羅及法愚癡。二者、惡趣雜染愚癡及彼麤重爲所對治。乃至於如來地有二愚癡者。一者於一切種所知境界極微細着愚癡。二者、極微細礙愚癡及彼麤重爲所對治。由此廿二種愚總及十一種麤重、安立諸地。」 [T 676.16.704b4–c3. In the source text, this discussion goes through each of the ten bhūmi s, most of which Wonhyo has skipped over here.]故。是明品別離繫門也。

World Honored One: How many kinds of delusion and how many kinds of debilitating hindrances are corrected at each of the bodhisattva grounds?

Sons of Good Families, there are twenty-two kinds of delusion and eleven kinds of debilitating hindrances that are corrected. Namely, at the first bodhisattva ground there are two kinds of delusion. One is the delusion of attachment to person and dharmas. The second is the delusion of the stain of the evil destinies, along with their debilitating hindrances, which are here corrected . . .

and so forth up to

. . . coming up to the stage of the Tathāgata there are two kinds of delusion. The first kind is the delusion of extremely subtle attachment to all knowable objects. The second kinds is the most extremely subtle impedimentary delusions, as well as their associated debilitating hindrances—which are here corrected. The [bodhisattva] grounds are established based on [the correction of] these twenty-two kinds of delusion and eleven kinds of debilitating hindrances.

(T 676.16.704b4–c3.) 226

This clarifies the teaching of escape from the tethers according to class.

[HBJ 1.810c11, WSC 608]


In the portion of the stage of the Path of Cultivation that occurs within the ten grounds, the main practice is that of contemplating thusness in itself; one does not practice the contemplation of the distinctions in thusness. Yet when [the bodhisattvas] enter into contemplation, they simultaneously realize the thusness that is manifested by the two kinds of selflessness. Therefore they simultaneously eliminate the seeds of the two hindrances. Since they do not specifically cultivate the antidotes to the attachment to person, they are unable to eliminate the latent [hindrances associated with] attachment to person. 227

[HBJ 1.810c15, WSC 608]

瑜伽說。「法執自性執、我自性而轉、覺彼由觀故還滅。」 [T 1579.30.663a27–8. The source text, which is in verse format, differs enough to warrant some attention. It reads: 執法自性故 執我性而轉 覺此故覺彼 由覺故還滅.]

As the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra says:

Because of attachment to intrinsic nature and to dharmas

The nature of [attachment to] self evolves

Being awakened to this through contemplation, cessation is attained. (T 1579.30.663a27–8) 228

對法論云。 「又、諸菩薩於十地修道位中、唯修所知障對治道、非煩惱障。得菩提時、頓斷煩惱障及所知障、頓成阿羅漢及如來。」 [T 1606.31.763c26–29]是明頓斷二障、頓得二果。非望九品說頓斷也。

The *Abhidharma-samuccaya says:

“Furthermore, bodhisattvas at the stage of the Path of Cultivation in the ten bodhisattva grounds only cultivate the corrective practices applicable to cognitive hindrances, and not for the afflictive hindrances. Upon the attainment of enlightenment, they suddenly eliminate both the afflictive hindrances and the cognitive hindrances, suddenly becoming arhats and tathāgatas. (T 1606.31.763c26–29) ”

This clarifies the sudden elimination of the two hindrances and the sudden attainment of the two realizations. Sudden elimination is not explained in terms of the nine classes [of afflictions]. Entrenched Afflictions

(a) Broad Interpretation of the Nescience Entrenchment

[HBJ 1.810c21, WSC 610]

上來所明見修位 [The HBJ has after .]中所斷二障、皆在起惑。未明住地。若就住地煩惱說其治斷位者、二乘所斷四種住地隨其所應。菩薩亦斷。除此以外亦能更斷通相無明地少分。迷八 [HBJ has instead of .]妄想所緣境邊、妄想斷時亦能斷故。如起信論云。 「不了一法界義者、從信相應地觀察學斷。入淨心地、隨分得離。乃至如來地究竟離故。」 [T 1666.32.577c15–17.]此就通相無明而說。

So far the explanation of the two hindrances that are eliminated in the Paths of Seeing and Cultivation has been limited to the category of the arisen aspect of the afflictions— we have not yet dealt with the entrenchments. If we explain the stages of subjugation and elimination from the perspective of the entrenched afflictions, the four entrenchments that are eliminated by the adherents of the two vehicles are corrected according to the situation. It is the same for the bodhisattvas.

As far as the elimination of the remaining hindrances is concerned, practitioners can further eliminate a small portion of the broadly interpreted entrenchment of nescience. As for delusion in regard to the objective realm conditioned by the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization, when deluded conceptualization is eliminated, this can also be eliminated. As the Awakening of Faith says:

The non-realization of the one realm of existence is eliminated by the investigation and contemplation in the stages that are associated with faith. Upon entering into the stage of the pure mind, freedom is also attained according to one’s ability. Finally, one arrives to the stage of the Tathāgata, where one is able to attain final freedom. (T 1666.32.577c15–17)

This is the explanation from the perspective of [entrenched] nescience in its broad interpretation.

(b) Specific Aspects of the Nescience Entrenchment

[HBJ 1.811a5, WSC 612]

若論別相無明住地、一切菩薩所不能斷。唯佛鏡智之所頓斷。依此義故 仁王經言。 「唯有頓覺如來。無有漸覺諸佛。」 [T 1485.24.1018c20. This line is not found in the Sutra for Humane Kings, but in the Benye jing.] 夫人經言。 「無明住地其力最大。唯佛菩提智所能斷。 」 [T 353.12.220a10–15(abridged).]故。 又、異熟識極微細着、依此無明最微細礙、諸轉識中二障習氣隨異熟識不離而轉。 皆是菩薩所不能離。唯有如來之所能斷。是謂究竟道中所斷差別。

If we discuss the entrenchment of nescience in terms of its specific characteristics, then it is something that bodhisattvas cannot eliminate. It can be suddenly eliminated only by the buddhas’ mirrorlike cognition. It is with this point in mind that the Sutra for Humane Kings says: “There are only suddenly-enlightened tathāgatas. There are no gradually enlightened buddhas.” (T 1485.24.1018c20) 229 The Śrīmālā-sūtra says: “The power of the entrenchment of nescience is extremely great. . .it can be eliminated only by the enlightened wisdom of the buddhas.” (T 353.12.220a10–15 (abridged)) Furthermore, the ripening consciousness has extremely subtle attachments. Depending on the extremely subtle hindrances of nescience, the habit energies within the forthcoming consciousnesses make their appearance inseparably linked with the ripening consciousness. They are something from which the bodhisattvas are unable to free themselves—only the tathāgatas are able to eliminate them. These are the distinctions in what is eliminated in the Ultimate Path. From the Perspective of Nonobstruction between Purity and Impurity

[HBJ 1.811a14, WSC 613]

上來所說障治差別、是約染淨非一義門故、說障能尋道、道能除障。若就染淨無障礙門、障非礙道、道不出障。障無異障 [According to the context, might be .]。如來旣體如是道理故、一切諸法卽爲自體。旣皆自體、有何所斷。有何能斷。何得有出二諦外、而灼然獨住者乎。

Since the above-explained distinctions in the subjugation of the hindrances have been made from the perspective of an interpretation that regards defilement and purity as being different, we say that the hindrances enable the seeking of enlightenment, and that enlightenment can remove the hindrances. But if we look at it from the perspective of nonobstruction between defilement and purity, then the hindrances do not impede enlightenment, and enlightenment is not an escape from the hindrances. What is hindering is not a separate hindrance. Since the Tathāgata has already embodied this kind of principle, all the dharmas are none other than his own body. Since they are his own body, what is there to be eliminated? And what does the elimination? How can we go beyond the two truths, and abide in illuminated independence?

[HBJ 1.811a20, WSC 614]

(瓔珞)經言。 「生死與道合、道卽是生死。」 [T 656.16.127a5.]故。又(大乘莊嚴經)論云。 「無苦亦極苦、無我亦我見。」 [T 1604.31.626a8.] 故。當知一切法及一切種門無障無有礙。悉然悉不然。佛會如是性、不集亦不散。由無得不得故、有斷不斷離相而窮往。故號爲善逝。乘如而盡還、故稱曰如來。如 言。 「諸佛還爲凡夫故、不空。無無故、不有法。非法故不二。非二法故不一。」 [T 1485.24.1018b28-c2, but significantly changed from the source.]。由是道理、斷與不斷皆無障礙。上來四門合爲第五治斷分竟。

As the Yingluo jing says: “Cyclic existence is one with enlightenment; enlightenment is nothing other than cyclic existence.” (T 656.16.127a5) The Mahāyānasūtrâlaṃkāra says: “No suffering, yet extreme suffering; no self, yet self-views.” (T 1604.31.626a8) You should know that all forms of the dharma and all of its interpretations to lack hindrance, and to have no impediment. They are all thus, and all not thus. The buddhas are at one with this kind of nature, which is neither gathered nor dispersed. Since there is no attainment that is not attained, elimination and non-elimination are free from their marks, and one reaches the limit [of practice]. Thus we have the appellation “well-gone” (Skt. sugata) [811b] Having ridden thus and completely returned, one is called “thus-come” (Skt. tathāgata) As the Benye jing says: “All buddhas return for worldlings; therefore they are not empty. Since nothingness is nothingness, there is no existence of dharmas; since it is non-dharma, it is not two; since there are not two dharmas, they are not one.” 230 For this reason elimination and non-elimination do not impede each other. This concludes the above four teachings, which consitute the explanation of the fifth chapter on the subjugation and elimination of the hindrances.

2.6. Resolution of Discrepancies

Next is the sixth major division of the text, the resolution of discrepancies.

[HBJ 1.811b6, WSC 616]

2.6.1. Question 1: Relationship between Counteracting the Afflictions of the Desire Realm and Attaining the Realization of Non-Returner


Question: Do all those who completely and permanently eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm attain the realization of the nonreturner? And do all those who attain the realization of the nonreturner completely and permanently eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm?

答。應作四句。有已永斷欲界惑、盡而非證得不還果者。謂超越那含進斷色界九品惑時、兼斷欲界被伏種子等。有未永斷欲界種子而已證得不還果者。謂如已離欲人入見道時。於彼種子伏斷作證等。第三句者、漸出離人證不還時。第四句者、除上 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]爾所事。

Answer: There are four ways of answering this. (1) There are some who completely and permanently eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm, but who have not yet attained the realization of the nonreturner. This happens because when they pass over the stage of nonreturner and advance to the elimination of the nine classes of affliction of the form realm, they simultaneously eliminate the seeds and so forth that were quelled in the desire realm. (2) There are some who have not yet permanently eliminated the seeds of the affliction of the desire realm, who nonetheless attain the realization of the nonreturner. This happens in the case of a person who enters the Path of Seeing free from the afflictions of the desire realm, who performs quelling-elimination of the seeds and attains this realization. (3) The third is the case where the person who attains gradual freedom realizes nonreturning. (4) The fourth covers all cases not included above.

2.6.2. Question 2: Relationship between the Liberation Attained in the Realms of Form and Formlessness

[HBJ 1.811b15, WSC 618]


Question: Do all those who permanently free themselves from the desire of the form realm definitely enter into the formless concentrations? And do all those who enter into the formless liberating concentrations definitely free themselves from the desire of the form realm?


Answer: There are four ways of answering this. (1) There are some who have already freed themselves from the desire of the form realm, but who have not yet entered the formless concentrations. This means that they have freed themselves from the desires of the form realm using the preparatory practices prior to the first concentration. (2) There are some who have already entered the formless concentrations and who have not yet freed themselves from the desire of the form realm. This is said in reference to sages who have already attained the level of the fourth meditation and do not seek birth in the form realm, yet who, due to a loss of intensity toward the practice of the fourth meditation, let go of the practices of elimination of affliction. Because of their attainment of the advanced stages of the path, they are gradually able to enter the concentrations of infinite space and so forth. (3) The third case is where one enters the concentration of infinite space depending on the practices of eliminating affliction. (4) The fourth covers the cases not included in the above.

[HBJ 1.811b24, WSC 618]

由是道理說滅盡定亦於色界重現在前。如對法論云。 「滅盡三摩鉢底要於人趣方能引發。或於人趣、或色界能現在前。先已生起後重現前。」 [T 1606.31.737b5–9 (abridged)] 故。此是依未建立阿賴耶識聖教而說。就如實義、於無色界亦重現前。有異熟識及種子色爲所依止、命根得住。此義具如瑜伽論說。

It is based on this interpretation that it is said that the concentration of cessation is reactivated in the form realm. [811c] As the *Abhidharma-samuccaya says: “The concentration of cessation must be experienced in a human rebirth. Sometimes it can manifest in the human existence and sometimes in the form realm. Once it has been experienced, it subsequently remanifests.” (T 1606.31.737b5–9, abridged) This explanation is based on canonical sources prior to the introduction of the teaching of the ālayavijñāna. In actuality, it also remanifests in the formless realm. The faculty of life can continue to exist in the ripening consciousness and seed-generated form as its basis. This is similar to the explanation given in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra.

2.6.3. Question 3: Relationship of Sentient Beings to the Three Realms

[HBJ 1.811c7, WSC 621]


Question: Do sentient beings exist apart from the three realms or not? Why is there uncertainty about this? Because whether you say they exist or they don’t exist, you are at odds with scriptural authority.

答。此有二義。若如古說、衆生之原 [HBJ has instead of in both places.]原在識窟、從彼流來、來入三界。是同外道經所說宗。佛法之內無如是義。是故若望過去求衆生本、無始世來流轉三界。若望其後修道、除障、出三界者、卽當分別。何者。若據現事、有多衆生出三界外、未離生死。若說自性出三界外、唯有佛地更無流轉。

Answer: There are two ways of interpreting this. If we follow the earlier teaching, then the origin of sentient beings lies within in the cave of consciousness, from which they flow out and enter into the three realms. This is the same as the teaching given in the non-Buddhist texts. However, there is no such teaching in Buddhism. Therefore, if you seek the origin of sentient beings in terms of the past, they have, since beginningless time, transmigrated throughout the three realms. If you look from the perspective of subsequent cultivation of the Way, removal of the hindrances, and escape from the three realms, then there are distinctions to be made. Why? If we observe in terms of the direct experience, then there are many sentient beings who escape from the three realms but who are not yet free from cyclic existence. If we look at it in terms of those who by nature have transcended the three realms, then only at the Buddha-stage is one free from transmigration.

[HBJ 1.811c16, WSC 623]

言據事者。曲有四重。一趣寂二乘。已出三界受意生身。如言。 「出三界外有三種意生身。」 [A summary of T 353.12.220a16–20] 故。二直往 [Using the WSC ’s instead of the HBJ’s .]菩薩、於十住中第四住位已出三界受不繫身。如言。 「第四生貴、眞佛子捨離生死、出三界。」 [T 278.9.448a10–11]故。

When we say “in terms of the direct experience”, there are, specifically speaking, four types of cases.

The first is that of the adherents of the two vehicles who are aiming for extinction. Once they escape from the three realms they take on the mind-made body. As the [Śrīmālā-]sūtra says: “Beyond the three realms, there are three kinds of mind-made bodies.” 231

The second is the direct departure of the bodhisattvas, who in the fourth of the ten abodes have already escaped from the three realms and attained the unfettered body. As the Flower Ornament Sutra says: “In the fourth [abode], true and nobly born disciples of the Buddha abandon cyclic existence and escape from the three realms.” (T 278.9.448a10–11)

[HBJ 1.811c21, WSC 623]

三者、於七地中三地菩薩、由願力故損伏煩惱出三界外、受淨土身。若不依願力非直出故。例如異生伏下地惑、受上生等。此亦如是。如言。 「有淸淨土出於三界、三地菩薩由願力故、得生於彼。非諸異生及非異生二乘等。」 [Somewhat altered, but basically the same as YBh T 1579.30.736c27.]故。

The third is the case of the bodhisattvas in the third of the seven grounds, 232 who, due to the power of their vows, quell the afflictions, transcend the three realms and attain the body of the Pure Land. If they do not rely on the power of their vows, they will not directly escape. [812a] It is like the case of unenlightened beings who subdue afflictions at lower stages, and thus receive a superior rebirth. As a sūtra says: “There are pure lands beyond the three realms where the bodhisattvas of the third bodhisattva ground are reborn due to the power of their vow. This is something that unenlightened worldlings or the adherents of the two vehicles are unable to accomplish.” 233

四者於十地中七地菩薩。由行勢力故、伏斷種子。捨此身已受意生身。例如超越那含無漏力故、伏斷種子、不生欲界。此亦如是。如言。 「初地乃至七地、三界業果倶伏盡無餘。八地乃盡故。 」 [T 1485.1016c17–18]

The fourth case is that of the bodhisattvas who are at the seventh of the ten grounds. Due to the power of their practice, they quell and eliminate the seeds. Casting off this body, they attain a mind-made body. It is like the one who, because of the power of non-contamination possessed in the passing over of the stage of nonreturner, quells and eliminates the seeds, and is not reborn into the desire realm. This is the same sort of thing. As the Benye jing says: “From the first bodhisattva ground to the seventh, the karmic effects of the three realms are completely subdued without remainder. In the eighth ground, they are extinguished.” (T 1485.1016c17–18)

[HBJ 1.812a8, WSC 625]


This has all been explained from the perspective of the direct experience of the three realms. It is by not experiencing them that one is able to escape. Yet in terms of the essence of the three realms, from these four stages up to the adamantine concentration, none have yet been able to escape. What is the meaning of “the essence of the three realms”? This refers to the dependently originated self-nature permeated by karma from the eight kinds of discrimination in the three realms. Included here are the natures of the eighteen realms that are the karmic retributions of the afflictions in the three realms. When the practitioners of the three vehicles escape from the three realms, they permanently eliminate seeds of contingent causes in the three realms. Because of this, they do not directly experience the direct awareness of the three realms. Yet the three realms still exist in essence, since one has not yet eliminated their causes and conditions.

[HBJ 1.812a15, WSC 626]


If we explain the liberation from the essence of the three realms from the perspective of the elimination of their causes, conditions, and seeds, then in the first bodhisattva ground, one begins to eliminate the coarse class of the causes and conditions of the three realms. Thus, one extricates oneself from the coarse class in the essence of the three realms. One gradually extricates oneself like this up until the stage of the adamantine concentration, wherein one eliminates the subtlest class of the causes and conditions of the three realms, and then extricates oneself from the subtlest class of the essence of the three realms. Yet since they have not yet freed themselves from the habit energies of the three realms, all sentient beings abide within the matrix of the essence of the three realms. Only the buddha-tathāgatas transcend the three realms.

[HBJ 1.812a22, WSC 626]

言。 「一切衆生煩惱、不出三界藏 [HBJ has here, but it does not seem to fit, and is not in Taishō or KT.]。一切衆生果報廿二根不出三界。諸佛應化、法、身、亦不出三界。三界外無衆生 [HBJ has here, but it does not seem to fit, and is not in Taishō or KT.] 佛何所化。是故我說三界外別有一衆生界藏者、是外道大有經中說。非七佛所說。我常語、一切衆生斷三界煩惱業果報盡者、名爲佛。」 [T 245.8.826c29–827a5]故。

As the Sutra [for Humane Kings] says:

None of the afflictions of sentient beings survive beyond the matrix of the three realms. [812b] The twenty-two faculties 234 of sentient beings’ karmic retribution do not lie outside the three realms. All the buddha-bodies of response, transformation, and reality are also not outside the three realms. Beyond the three realms there are no sentient beings. Whom would the Buddha teach? Therefore I say that [the view that] beyond the three realms there is a realm-matrix of sentient beings is a teaching of the Vaiśeṣikas. 235 It is not the teaching of the seven buddhas [of the past]. What I have always taught is that once sentient beings completely exhaust the karmic effects of the afflictions of the three realms, that is called “buddha.” (T 245:8.826c29–827a5)

2.6.4. Question 4: Placement of the Adherents of the Two Vehicles in the Framework of the Mahāyāna Path

[HBJ 1.812b4, WSC 629]


Question: How should śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who have reached the stage of no further application be situated within the stages of the Mahāyāna path?


Answer: The practices appropriate to the two vehicles have higher and lower degrees. Therefore in terms of their position [from the perspective of the Mahāyāna path,] we could assign them to both advanced and retrograde stages. Why? Once [the adherents of the two vehicles] have reached the limits of the attainment of the body of liberation, they sit on the same seat of liberation with all buddhas.

楞伽經言。 「聲聞緣覺諸佛如來煩惱障斷解脫一味、非智障斷。」 [T 670.16.513a19–20]故。若論解脫品、卽同十地最後念中人空解邊。依此義故。涅槃經中說 「四依言。阿羅漢者住第十地。」 [T 374.12.397a22–23] 若論具受最後身義、卽與七地菩薩位同。

As the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra says: “The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas share the same taste of liberation with all buddha-tathāgatas in the elimination of the afflictive hindrances, but not in the elimination of the cognitive hindrances.” (T 670.16.513a19–20) Hence, if we discuss the matter in terms of the level of liberation, then [lesser and greater vehicle] practitioners are equal in the very final thought-moment of the ten bodhisattva grounds in terms of the extent to which they experience the selflessness of person. Based on this doctrine, the Nirvāṇa Sutra’s chapter on the four kinds of reliance says: “the arhats abide in the tenth bodhisattva ground.” (T 374.12.397a22–23) If we explain in terms of the doctrine of the reception of the final body, then the arhat is of the same rank as a bodhisattva of the seventh bodhisattva ground.

[HBJ 1.812b13, WSC 631]

依此義故。仁王經言。 「遠達菩薩伏三界集 [Taishō has instead of .]因業滅。住後身中住第七地、阿羅漢位。」 [T 245.8.832a18]若論外化神力等行、還在十解菩薩已下。如言。 「習種性中有十種心、已超過 [Using Taishō’s 超過 instead of HBJ’s .]二乘一切善地。」 [T 245.8.826b29]故。

Based on this doctrine, the Sutra for Humane Kings says: “The advanced bodhisattvas subdue to extinction the gathering of karmic causes in the three realms. Abiding in a subsequent body, their place is the seventh ground, the level of the arhat.” (T 245:8.832a18) If we discuss the relationship between the two in terms of the usage of supernatural powers of external manifestation, then the arhats are placed at the level of the bodhisattva of the ten understandings and below. As the Sutra for Humane Kings says: “Within the cultivated pure lineage there are ten kinds of mind, which are superior to all the virtuous stages of the two vehicles.” (T 245:8.826b29)

[HBJ 1.812b18, WSC 631]

若就心行寬狹、長短、十信苦薩亦在其上。如說。 「羅漢比丘知其沙彌發菩薩心、推在前等。」 [T 1646.32.291c25–27] 故。由是義故、趣寂二乘隨其利鈍、逕多劫數、方到阿耨菩提心位。如言。 「須陀洹人亦復不定。以不定故、逕八萬劫卽能得到阿耨菩提、乃至獨覺、逕十千劫得到阿耨菩提之心。」 [T 374.12.494b1–4]

From the perspective of the breadth and narrowness, the length and shortness of the mental range of operation, the bodhisattvas in the ten levels of faith are also superior [to the adherents of the two vehicles]. As the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra 236 says: “When the arhat-monk is aware that his novice student has generated the bodhisattva’s mind, he sets him in the front [and carries his bowl for him].” (T 1646.32.291c25–27) Because of this, the adherents of the two vehicles who are aiming for quiescence, according to the sharpness or dullness of their faculties, reach the level of perfect enlightenment only after passing through many eons. As the [Nirvāṇa] Sutra says: “The stream-winners are of indefinite lineage. Since they are of indefinite lineage, after passing through eighty-thousand eons, they are able to attain perfect enlightenment . . . and so forth, up to the pratyekabuddhas , who are able to attain perfect enlightenment after ten thousand eons.” (T 374.12.494b1–4)

[HBJ 1.812c1, WSC 634]

此明何義。如最鈍 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]根須陁洹人受七生已方入涅槃、滅心心法、如入滅定。經八萬劫乃得生心。生心之時、受佛教化、卽發阿耨菩提之心。若其一身 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]得第二果、受二生已入於涅槃。逕六萬劫卽能發心。

[812c] What doctrine does this clarify? It is as when stream-winners of the dullest faculties undergo seven rebirths before entering nirvāṇa, extinguishing mind and mental factors—like the entry into the concentration of extinction. Passing through eighty thousand eons, they attain the generation of the mind of enlightenment. When they generate this mind, they receive further instructions from the Buddha, and thus generate the mind of perfect enlightenment. If, in this single lifetime, they attain the second realization (once-returner), then they undergo two rebirths, and subsequently enter into nirvāṇa. Passing through sixty thousand eons, they are is able to generate the mind [of enlightenment].

[HBJ 1.812c6, WSC 633]


If in this single lifetime, they attain the realization of the nonreturner, and without returning to the desire realm enter into nirvāṇa, they pass through forty thousand eons, and are then able to generate the mind of enlightenment. If, in this single lifetime, they are able to attain the fourth realization (arhat), and enter into nirvāṇa in the present body, they pass through twenty thousand eons, and are then able to generate the mind of enlightenment. In the case of the pratyekabuddhas of the sharpest faculties, they are able to generate the mind of enlightenment after passing through ten thousand eons. This is the gist of what is taught in the [Nirvāṇa] Sutra on this topic. Once these five practitioners generate the mind of enlightenment, they are equivalent to bodhisattvas at the stage of the ten faiths. Yet since they are not yet able to carry out the bodhisattva practices with fierce energy, their practice cannot match the even the worldling bodhisattva practitioners who have the predilection for the Great Vehicle who have just generated the mind of enlightenment. It is like a proverb says: “One who wants to go on a trip must first prepare provisions.” 237 Isn’t this the same?

2.6.5. Question 5: How Can the Manas Cognize All Dharmas?

[HBJ 1.812c15, WSC 635]


Question: Above it was said that the manas cognizes all dharmas. Through what forms of argumentation can this be proved?

答。證成道理略有二種。先立比量、後引聖言。比量之中亦有二種。一能立正、二能破邪。初能立者。第七末那意識生時、必與同境、不共所依故。凡諸所有不共所依能依生時、必與同境。猶如眼等。如其未必同一境者、見彼一切非不共所依。如前滅等。此所立具 [Using HBJ’s instead of WSC’s .]三種相、不可破壞故、得成立。 [This discussion is a brief recapitulation of one that takes place in Wonhyo’s Kisillon so at T 1844:44.212c12–20. This passages becomes clearer after one reads that discussion.]

Answer: There are two methods of argumentation through which this can be confirmed. The first is by logical argumentation. 238 The second is by scriptural authority. Within inference there are two approaches: (1) proof of valid claims (sādhana); (2) refutation of invalid claims (dūṣana). Proof Through Inference Proof of Valid Claims

We will begin from the perspective of proof of valid claims. When the manas and manovijñāna arise, while they must share the same objects, they have distinct bases. Generally speaking, in all cases where there are distinct bases and dependents, they must share in the same objects (otherwise they would have nothing whatsoever to link them). It is like the [opposite] case of the visual consciousness and the rest [of the five sense consciousnesses]. Though they do not necessarily share the same objects, we see that none fail to share in the same bases. It is like the sequential annihilation [of the manas] and so forth. Since this proposition includes three components [of a valid argument], it can’t be refuted, so it can be taken as proof. 239 Refutation of Error

[HBJ 1.812c23, WSC 636]


[813a]What is the approach of refutation? It is as when someone makes an assertion saying: since the manas does not necessarily share the some referents with the mano and it is not concomitant with it, all non-concomitant conscious functions that we observe do not necessarily have the same objective referents. It is just like the visual consciousness and so forth. Or, someone asserts that since the visual consciousness and the other sense faculties do not necessarily share the same objects with the mano and are not concomitant with it, it is the case that all non-concomitant conscious functions we see may possibly not share the same objects—just like the manas. This is a fallacy [in Buddhist logic] wherein differing, but individually valid reasons lead to the completion of contradictory propositions, 240 and so neither position constitutes a valid proof.


Why? If, based on the assumption that the bases and dependents of the manas are not concomitant, we allow that they do not share their objects, and we apply this reason to the visual faculty and so forth, we cannot disallow that their objects will be different. If, using this reason, we simultaneously acknowledge both positions, both of the positions of non-sharing of referents are confirmed.

[HBJ 1.813a9, WSC 639]


Furthermore, if the position of lack of referents of the visual faculty and so forth serves as a proper example, 241 then one ends up asserting that the manas lacks referents. If the manas does not lack referents, yet does not share the same objects with its dependent [the mano], then lacking shared reasons, they cannot be posited. Therefore, from the perspective of proof and refutation, it is established that the manas and manovijñāna share the same objective realm. Since the manas shares the same objective realm with the manovijñāna, that fact that the manas perceives all objects is self-evident. The Argument Based on Scriptural Authority

[HBJ 1.813a14, WSC 639]

聖言量者、如(入楞伽)經言。 「境界風所動七識波浪轉。 」 [T 670.12.484b11–13] 起信論主述此意。 「以有境界緣故、復生六種相。何等爲六。一者智相。」 [T 1666.32.577a12–13]乃至廣說。此中智相卽是末那中於一切時惠數相應故、名智相。於中委悉具如彼論記中已說。依此聖言、當知末那亦爲六塵境界所起、非直緣其阿賴耶識也。

As for the argument based on scriptural authority, it is like the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra says: “Moved by the winds of the objective realm, the waves of the seven consciousness roll.” (T 670.12.484b11–13) The author of the Awakening of Faith comments on this point: “Due to cognition of the objective realm, the six kinds of marks are newly produced. What are the six? The first is the mark of discriminating knowledge. . .” (T 1666.32.577a12–13) and so forth. Here, the mark of discriminating knowledge is always concomitant with the mental factor of intelligence in the manas; therefore it is called the mark of discriminating knowledge. I have already discussed the details of this in my Expository Notes 242 on that treatise. Depending upon scriptural authority, you should know that the manas is also produced by the objects of the six fields, and is not simply conditioned by the ālayavijñāna.

2.6.6. Coarseness and Subtlety in the Nescience Entrenchment

[HBJ 1.813a21, WSC 641]


Question: The entrenchments of nescience which were explained earlier, are, in their broad interpretation, also removed by the adherents of the two vehicles according to their abilities. But we still do not know whether or not these entrenchments of nescience have distinctions of coarse and subtle or light and heavy. If they do have [distinctions of] coarse and subtle, then there will be some afflictions that are eliminated and some that are not. If this is the case, then one would assume that a portion of these overlap into association with the eighth consciousness. [813b] If [on the other hand,] they are completely unassociated, there can be no distinctions of coarse and subtle, or light and heavy. How can we say that the adherents of the two vehicles have some hindrances that are eliminated and some that are not?


If we suppose that they share in delusions such as the view of self that are error in regard to principle—then even if these are not coarse, they are eliminated together. If this is the case, then the nescience that is concomitant with the manas is the same as the view-based error of confusion in regard to the principle of selflessness. Therefore they should be eliminated together in the Path of Seeing. But if, due to their subtlety, one is unable to eliminate them [in that path], how can the most extremely subtle of these possibly be eliminated simultaneously?

[HBJ 1.813b6, WSC 643]


Answer: The entrenchments of nescience are so imperceptibly subtle that distinctions such as coarse and fine or light and heavy cannot be clearly articulated. Therefore they need to be explained in terms of all kinds of various types. Why? If afflictions are fully activated at a high level of strength and energy, then they can be described only as coarse, and not as subtle. If the marks of their activity are not yet discernible, and they are not concomitant with mind, then they can be described only as being subtle, and not as being coarse.

[HBJ 1.813b10, WSC 643]

望其所障 [The additional is added here based on the parallel sentence structure below (望其所通、通下通上).]障下障上。卽可得說有重有輕。直當自相一無增微、卽唯可說非輕非重。其上無重、其下無輕、亦不可說唯在中品。但由非輕故、下智能除。由非重故、上智亦斷。非輕重故、中智得滅耳。喩如法界流轉五道。五道可說是麤、永絕四句可說是妙。

In terms of what they hinder, they hinder the greater and the lesser. Therefore they can be said to have both heavy and light aspects. The claim that there is neither light nor heavy can be made only in the case where their distinctive marks are one, without the slightest increase in subtlety. Above them there is nothing heavy, below them there is nothing light, and you also cannot say that they reside only in the intermediate level. However, because they are not light, lesser wisdom is able to remove them. And because they are not heavy, superior wisdom also eliminates them. When they are neither light nor heavy, middling wisdom can extinguish them! It is, for example, like the realm of existence coursing through the five destinies. The five destinies can be called coarse, but when they permanently sever the four positions, 243 then they can be called subtle.

[HBJ 1.813b16, WSC 643]


In terms of what they penetrate, they penetrate below and penetrate above, and thus you can say that there are shallow and deep [afflictions]. If they have no distinguishing marks of order, then you can say only that they are neither shallow nor deep—below there is nothing shallow, above there is nothing deep, and you also cannot say that they abide in the space between. Nonetheless, since they are not deep, lesser wisdom is able to realize them. Since they are not shallow, superior wisdom is able to understand them. Since they are neither deep nor shallow, middling wisdom is also able to meet them.

[HBJ 1.813b22, WSC 648]


You should understand the lightness and heaviness of [entrenched] nescience in the same way. The nescience in the manas consists of its concomitant afflictions. Its activities are defined; its lightness and heaviness have a limit. Therefore the antidotes are of only a single category. You cannot take the manas’ defining activities as representative of the entrenchment of nescience. Therefore, the essence and attributes of nescience can be thoroughly illuminated only by the perfect wisdom of the Buddha. [813c] The bodhisattvas in their final lifetime who possess the wisdom of the Ultimate Path are able to see only the end of this nescience—they cannot see its origin. “Seeing its end” means that within the three existences produced from nescience, they apprehend nonexistence and also illuminate no nonexistence.

[HBJ 1.813c3, WSC 646]

未見始者、於此無明所迷獨空、唯有信解、未能證見故。如達 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .]所起三界有無、亦照能起無明空有。未見所迷一法界相故、亦未達能迷行相。是故如是無明行相甚深微密、唯佛所窮。

“Not seeing its origin” means that because of their mistaken perception, through nescience, of “emptiness-only,” they are able to believe, but they are not yet able to confirm it for themselves. It is as when, while understanding the existence and nonexistence of the three objective realms, one also observes the act of giving rise to nescience regarding emptiness and existence. But since one is still not yet able to discern the objectively mistaken marks of the single realm of existence, one is also not yet able to fully understand the defining activities of subjective delusion. Therefore the defining activities of nescience are extremely deep and profoundly subtle, such that only the Buddha is able to fathom it.

[HBJ 1.813c9, WSC 648]


Objection: If you say that the truth of the two kinds of selflessness obscured by the two kinds of attachment is real and not non-existent, and can only be illuminated by sagely wisdom, then we can also submit that the two entities of person and dharmas that are reified by the two kinds of delusions are false, nonexistent, and not illuminated by sagely wisdom. If we admit both of these positions, then there is no conventional wisdom to remove the great error of denying the relationship of cause and effect. If you take the position that even though reified dharmas are not real, there are provisional dharmas perceived by cognition, that means that even though the reified self is not real, there is a provisional self perceived by cognition. If we accept both of these positions, that which is illuminated by sagely wisdom does not go beyond the three phenomena [of the five aggregates, eighteen realms, and twelve bases]. Within the aggregates, realms, and bases, where is the self to be located? If you say that there are really provisional dharmas, but not a provisional self, then this means that there is selflessness of person, but there is not selflessness of dharmas .

[HBJ 1.813c18, WSC 648]


If both kinds of selflessness exist, then both person and dharmas are non-existent. If you say that reified dharmas do not really exist, and therefore there is selflessness of dharmas, and yet since the reification of dharmas refers to dharmas that are born from the perfuming by language—they are not real but nonetheless exist; they exist, but nonetheless are not real—then this does not refute the selflessness of dharmas. If this is so, then the attachment to person refers to the self that is born from perfuming by language, and so it is not real, but nonetheless exists; it exists, but nonetheless is not real. This perspective does not refute the selflessness of person. At the time of causation, all are equally perfumed, but the results are not equally generated. This does not make sense.

[HBJ 1.813c24, WSC 648]


If we speak from the perspective of the principle of cause and conditions as expressed by the conventional truth, [814a] when the four kinds of causes are combined, 244 dharmas are produced. Also from the perspective of cause and conditions as expressed by the conventional truth, when the five aggregates combine, the person is produced. If, when the five aggregates are combined there is no person produced, and when the four conditions combine, there are no dharmas produced [it would mean that] in both cases there are causal conditions in the form of perfuming and seeds, but effects are both produced and not produced. This also does not make sense.

[HBJ 1.814a4, WSC 651]

通曰。所設諸難皆有道理。有道理故、悉無不許。無不許故、無所不通。是義云何。若對外道所執、是一、是常、是我、卽許有五蘊而無一我。離蘊法外無神我故。如(維摩)經言。「無我、無造、無受者。以因緣故諸法生。」 [T 475.14.14.537c15. These lines are reversed in the source text in T and KT.] 又言 「如第三手 [HBJ’s , rather than , is clearly wrong here.]如第二頭。五陰中我亦復如是。」 [The first part of this citation about the heads and hands is found in many texts, such as the Satyasiddhi-śāstra [T 1646.32.315b14], but I have not yet found the full line in one piece.] 故。

Response: Each of the above objections has a valid reason. Since each has a valid reason, there are none that are not admissible. Since there are none that are not admissible, there is no point of disagreement. What does this mean? To counter the non-Buddhist attachments to oneness, to eternalism, or to the self, we admit that there are five aggregates, but no oneness and no self. This is because outside the dharmas of the five aggregates, there is no such thing as a soul. As the Vimalakīrti Sutra 245 says: “There is no self, no doer, no experiencer. All dharmas are born of causes and conditions.” (T 475:14.14.537c15) 246 That text also says: “It is like a third hand, or a second head. So it is with a self existing within the five aggregates.” 247

[HBJ 1.814a12, WSC651]

若對二乘所執三世五蘊之法、卽許有一我、而無五蘊。雖眞我外、無五法故。如言。 「卽此法身 [HBJ has 法界, but it should be 法身 according to the source and context.]流轉五道說名衆生。」 [This phrase is cited secondarily in many places with the same introduction, “a sūtra says” 經言, but I have not yet found it in a sūtra.]又言。 「一切衆生皆有佛性。」 [T 374.12.404c4–5]卽是我義者、卽是如來藏義故。

To counter the attachment of the adherents of the two vehicles to the dharmas of the five aggregates throughout the three times, we admit the existence of a unitary self, and deny the five aggregates. This is because even though there is a true self, beyond it there are no five dharmas. As a sūtra says: “When this same dharma body transmigrates through the five destinies, it is called ‘sentient being.’” 248 It is also said: “All sentient beings possess buddha-nature.” (T 374.12.404c4–5) Thus, the term “self” here refers to the tathāgatagarbha.

[HBJ 1.814a15, WSC 651]

若對菩薩依甚深教、如言取義起損滅執、卽許我法皆悉是有。如論說云。又 「此假我、是無常相、是非有相、非安保相。{是變壞相}。」 [T 1579.30.307b22. HBJ does not include the final phrase from the Yogâcārabhūmi, which says 是變壞相. ] 乃至廣說故。

To counter the attachment to nihilistic tendencies by bodhisattvas who attach to the words that express the most profound teaching, we admit the existence of a self and dharmas. As the [Yogâcārabhūmi-]śāstra says: “This provisional self does not have the character of permanence, existence, or stability. [It has the character of change and disintegration]. . .” (T 1579.30.307b22) and so forth.

若對菩薩依法相教、如言取義起增益執、卽許人法皆無所有。如言。 「尚無我無衆生、乃至智者見者。何況當有色受想行識。」 [Found in T 1509.25.700c7–8, (Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra) which is not a sūtra.] 故。如其當因緣道理、若人若法、非有非無。非無故、說人法皆有量智所照。非有故、說人法二空理智所證。理智所證者、不損人法也。量智所照者、不壞二空也。

To counter the attachment to reification by bodhisattvas who attach to the words that express the teaching of the characteristics of dharmas, we admit that both person and dharmas are nonexistent. As a sūtra says: “Even self, sentient being and so forth up to cognition and views do not exist, how much more so with form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.” 249 According to this principle of cause and conditions, whether it is person or dharmas, they are neither existent nor non-existent. Since they are not non-existent, we say that the person and dharmas exist as illuminated by discriminating wisdom. Since they are not existent, we say that the principle of the two kinds of selflessness of person and dharmas is that which is realized by the wisdom of principle. Since they are realized by the wisdom of principle, we do not deny the existence of person and dharmas. That which is illuminated by the wisdom of discrimination does not controvert the teaching of the two kinds of selflessness. 250

[HBJ 1.814b2, WSC 654]

花嚴經言。「分別一切法、不取諸法相。」 [T 278.9.455a16] 「善分別衆生、而無衆生相。」 [T 278.9.455c1] 中邊論云。 「謂實有我增益人邊。實無有我損減人邊。謂實有法增益法邊。實無有法損減法邊。」 [T 1599.31.462c8–11] 依此聖言、當知人法有無、齊等是究竟義。互 [Using WSC’s instead of HBJ’s .] 說有無是隨宜說法。

As the Flower Ornament Sutra says: “One discriminates all dharmas without attaching to the marks of dharmas.” (T 278.9.455a16) and “Skillfully discriminating sentient beings without the marks of sentient beings.” (T 278.9.455c1) The Madhyânta-vibhāga says: “Saying that there is a true self is the extreme of the reification of the person. Saying that there is no self is the extreme of denial of the person. Saying that there are really dharmas is the extreme of the reification of dharmas. Saying that there are no dharmas is the extreme of the denial of dharmas.” (T 1599.31.462c8–11) Depending on this scriptural authority, one should understand that the existence and nonexistence of person and dharmas equally express the ultimate truth. The alternating explanations of existence and nonexistence are teachings that are given appropriate to the situation.

[HBJ 1.814b8, WSC 656]

此所說我何法攝者。若論法界、衆生、佛性之我、非卽蘊、界、處、不離蘊、界、處。而亦得說法界法處所攝。此義具如十二門論 說。 「若論我見熏習所生假我、十一識中自他差別識攝。非卽蘊、界、處、不離蘊、界、處。而亦得入行蘊、法界、法處所攝。」 [This is not a direct quote, but is a summary of the point of a passage, not from the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra, but from the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha, T 1593.31.118a21–29]

What kind of phenomenon is this self that is under discussion? If we take the self as realm of existence, sentient being, or buddha-nature, then neither is it identical with the aggregates, realms, or fields, nor is it separate from the aggregates, realms, or fields. Yet it also can be said that is it something included in the realm of conceptualization and the field of conceptualization. This interpretation is found in the *Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra, 251 which says that if you discuss the nominal self that is produced from perfuming by the view of self, then it should be included among the consciousness of the distinction of self and other among the eleven consciousnesses. 252 It is not the aggregates, realms, or fields, and is not separate from the aggregates, realms or fields. Yet it is also able to be embraced by the aggregate of volition, the realm of conceptualization and the field of conceptualization.

[HBJ 1.814b14, WSC 656]

說言。 「如是假我不可說言與彼諸法異不異性。」 [T 1579.30.307b20]故。行蘊之內何法攝者。入於不相應法所攝、廿四中衆同分攝。此亦名爲衆生種類。然此衆生及與諸法、非如所說有人有法、而非是無故。作是說耳、然二障道理唯佛所窮。但依仰信聊須斟酌也。

As the [Yogâcārabhūmi-]śāstra says: “This nominal self cannot be said to have a nature that is either the same as, or different from all the dharmas.” (T 1579.30.307b20) What kind of dharmas are contained within the aggregate of volition? These are the twenty-four factors that are not associated [with mind], in the category of commonality, which is also called “the species of sentient beings.” Yet these sentient beings, as well as all dharmas, are not really person or dharmas in the commonly understood sense of the word, nor are they nonexistent.

I have offered this explanation, yet the truth of the two hindrances can be fathomed only by the buddhas. [We sentient beings] should consider it according to the situation, relying on pious faith.


1. Muller, Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment, pages 144–148.

2. In my work on the Ijang ui, I have identified more than two hundred problematic points in twenty-five HBJ pages.

3. For this, I am indebted to the invaluable contributions of Tripiṭaka Koreana, SAT, and CBETA projects for their work in digitizing the Chinese and Korean canons.

4. See T 1559.29.282c21. In the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra these two associations are replaced, respectively, by the afflictive hindrances, which are equivalent to defiled nescience, and the cognitive hindrances, which are equivalent to undefiled nescience. See T 1545.27.724b29

5. I would like to clarify that my choice of rendering of the term jang (Ch. zhang) with the English word hindrance has specific reasons. One often sees this term rendered in scholarly works and in translations (especially from Tibetan, it seems) as “two veils,” or “two obscurations,” etc., no doubt to provide an appropriate English equivalent for the Sanskrit āvaraṇa, which literally has these connotations. However, the actual application of the term in Yogâcāra, as well as other soteriological systems, extends far beyond the cognitive connotations indicated by such words as veil and obscuration. Especially in the case of afflictive hindrances, what is being indicated most of the time is the notion of “binding” (bandhana, saṃyojana; K. pak, kye), or debilitation, rigidity (dauṣṭhulya, K. ch’ujung) etc. In the case of the afflictions, we are dealing only tangentially with problems of cognitive distortion that might be interpreted by veil, etc. And in the case of the cognitive hindrances, although the meaning of veil can more readily be applied, even these hindrances include the aspect of debilitation, and so the applicability of such a rendering even in the case of the cognitive hindrances can be misleading. These hindrances are not merely “sky-flowers” or a distorting prism—they represent the whole gamut of negative emotions, concepts, and habits that keep us bound in cyclic existence. Of course, rather than hindrance, one might well choose from other synonyms that broadly express the same meaning, such as “impediment,” “obstruction,” etc. But in my work on this topic, especially when comparing the Yogâcāra hindrances with those from other systems, it is helpful to have a couple of other synonyms available for cases where one is dealing in a comparative manner with analogous concepts. Thus I have been keeping “obstructions” aside for that purpose, and using “hindrances” as my primary translation term.

6. See, for example, T 1611.31.818a14.

7. HBJ 1.790a17–21

8. However, as Wonhyo explains at considerable length in the Ijang ui, this is only true in a general sense, as certain types of cognitive hindrances can actually be removed by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and there are situations (such as that where the salvation of other sentient beings is at stake) where the bodhisattvas are more proficient than the adherents of the Two Vehicles at the removal of the afflictive hindrances.

9. I have discussed the process of the development of the hindrances system within the major Yogâcāra works in my forthcoming article “The Contribution of the Yogâcārabhūmi to the Development of the System of the Two Hindrances,” (to be published in the volume tentatively entitled “The Yogâcārabhūmi and the Yogâcāras,” from Harvard University Press). I will briefly summarize that discussion here.

10. In 1972 YOSHIZU Yoshihide questioned the accuracy of the attribution of Huiyuan’s authorship (in his “Eon no Kishinron-shū o meguru sho mondai”) and was later supported by HIRAKAWA Akira in his Daijō kishin ron (p. 399). The argument presented there is sufficient to concede that this commentary was probably composed after Huiyuan’s time. Nonetheless, no one disputes the probability that it was written by a person or persons intimate with his thought, quite possibly one of more of his students, and thus represents his essential teachings. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to this text as “Huiyuan’s Commentary.”

11. See T 1911.46.85b22–c22. The content of this discussion by Zhiyi has been treated by Paul Swanson in his “Chih-I’s Interpretation of jñeyāvaraṇa: An Application of the Three-Fold Truth Concept.”

12. My rendering of juji as “entrenchment” follows that used by Alex Wayman in his translation of the Śrīmālā-sūtra. However, Wayman only used the term entrenchment in conjunction with nescience, referring to the four afflictive types as “static defilements.” It seems to me that the meaning of entrenchment can be well applied in both cases, thus my present rendering. See Wayman, Lion’s Roar, p. 84, n. 56. Diana Paul’s rendering as “stages” in her translation of the Śrīmālā-sūtra for the BDK (p. 32) does not seem to reflect the most useful understanding of the meaning of this concept.

13. The locus classicus for this structure is the Śrīmālā-sūtra T 353.12.220a1–8. Please note that all of the technical terms contained in the Ijang ui have been added to the DDB, and are usually explained there in considerable detail.

14. See T 1843.44.188c3–9.

15. The explanation given to this category, found both in the Śrīmālā-sūtra and in Huiyuan’s commentary, locates the two vehicle practitioners and the bodhisattvas in positions analogous to that found in the Yogâcāra explanation, in terms of their ability to deal with the hindrances. See T 353.12.220a13–15.

16. My own guess at this point as to why Wonhyo did not include this category is that compared to the prior two, its textual sources are drawn from isolated phrases and passages that do not in themselves form cohesive arguments, and that he may not have been convinced that this should be established as a separate category.

17. The second chapter of the Madhyânta-vibhāga (Byeon jungbyeollon) is often cited as a source for hindrances discourse. But while the two hindrances are invoked at the beginning and end of the chapter, the discussion that takes place in between does not lend itself to any systematic development of hindrance theory that can be readily mapped to the standardized format of the hindrances being explained here—it is an outlier for standard hindrances discourse. The YBh contains extensive discussions on the topics of both affliction and cognitive distortion, but not in a single place, in an organized fashion, under the heading of the two hindrances.

18. See, for example, T1579.30.495c5–8, 496c5, 562b26, 727c11–16.

19. For example, at T 1579.30.354a13 ff., we have liberation from the afflictive hindrances (beonnoe jang haetal) juxtaposed with liberation from the cessation hindrances (jeongjang haetal), along with simultaneous liberation from both (kujang haetal). In such contexts, we never see the afflictive hindrances defined as originating in the view of person—it is just a reference to the phenomenon of affliction in general. Similar examples can be seen at T 1579.30.425b18 ff., and 427a16 ff. Beyond this, there are a number of places where the hindrances are named as obstacles to be overcome, with no special explanation of their content or implications. At T 1579.30.656a12–21 the afflictive hindrances and cognitive hindrances are included in a list of twelve items with the afflictive hindrances listed at number ten (their removal constituting the wisdom liberation (hye haetal) and the cognitive hindrances as number twelve (their removal constituting the Tathāgata’s liberation (yeorae sim deuk haetal), with the cessation hindrances in between at number eleven (their removal constituting the dual liberation (kubun haetal).

20. See, for example, at T 1579.30.446a18 ff.

21. See T 1579.30.486b16 ff.

22. In his Ijang ui, Wonhyo is diligent about citing his scriptural sources. Whenever he cites the Yogâcārabhūmi, AMF, or some other scriptural source, he clearly indicates the title. This is no doubt because these are considered to be scriptural authority. On the other hand, when citing the opinions of other scholars, he usually does not provide a source. However, in the Ijang ui there are many lines that are identical to lines in the FDJL, but which are not cited as such. So why did Wonhyo use lines from this text without citing its name? Perhaps portions of this text were circulating in East Asia prior to its publication, and he considered these to be the opinions of a contemporary scholar? It is an interesting question.

23. For the sources of these passages in the FDJL, see T 1530.26.323b-c.

24. This labeling of the 128 afflictions as “fundamental” as seen in the FDJL and CWSL is unusual, as the term geunbon beonnoe in these and other Yogâcāra texts almost always refers to the six fundamental afflictions, which are followed by the twenty-odd derivative afflictions. The number of 128 is arrived to by manipulating the list of ten afflictions (sipsa) in various relationships with the four truths and three realms. These ten are divided into two groups. The first five, which are characteristic of those of keen religious sensitivity are: view of self (singyeon), extreme view (byeongyeon), evil view (sagyeon) attachment to views (gyeonchwi gyeon), and view of attachment to the precepts (gyegeum chwigyeon). The second five, which are characteristic of those of undeveloped religious sensitivity are: desire (yok), hatred (jin), delusion (chi), pride (man), and doubt (ui). Wonhyo explains how these numbers are generated in the Ijang ui at HBJ 1.798b6–14.

25. This was noticed right away by commentators such as Kuiji, who defends this definition by explaining that although these afflictions are listed in both places, we should understand that there is a difference in their subtlety, intensity, and amount in each situation. See T 1830.43.560c1–4.

26. For this discussion, see T 842.916b20–c7; HBJ 7.146a; Muller, Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment, pp. 144–146.

27. The term kenshō does not appear in the SPE . But its author is giving a clear warning to those who practitioners who based on their meditative efforts, have some experience of insight into their inner nature, and assume they have become enlightened.

28. Please see my article “The Yogācāra Two Hindrances and their Reinterpretations in East Asia”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, (Vol. 27, 2004–1, pp. 207–235) for a discussion of this further development of the hindrances. I have also translated this portion of Zongmi’s Yuanjue jing dashu at

29. HBJ 10.46–47

30. I have discussed and translated this work in “Explanation of the Essence of the Two Hindrances through Ten Canonical Texts.”Korean Buddhism in East Asian Perspectives, p. 191–213. Also available online at

31. By Asaṅga, translated into Chinese in seven rolls by Xuanzang in 652 as Dasheng abitama ji lun (T 1605). It is a later Abhidharma work that treats certain aspects of Yogâcāra doctrine and is closely related in content to the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra. There is a French translation from the Sanskrit by Rāhula, which is further translated into English by Boin-Webb.

32. The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā is a commentary on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra attributed to Nāgârjuna, translated by Kumārajīva around 405 CE in seventeen rolls (T 1521). It consists primarily of an explanation of the bodhisattva stages contained in the Huayan jing and also contains one of the early expositions regarding Amitâbha Buddha.

33. The ten afflictions (K. sipjong beonnoe) are: (1) the view of the existence of body-as-self; (2) extreme views; (3) evil views; (4) view of attachment to views; (5) attachment to the precepts; (6) desire; (7) anger; (8) pride; (9) nescience, and (10) doubt. The first four of these are often separately categorized as the four attached views.

34. For example, in T 2177 and T 2180.

35. The Sino-Korean hok most commonly translates the Sanskrit doṣa. This term is commonly used as a direct synonym for affliction, referring especially to desire and grasping, but in the Ijang ui and most of the Yogâcāra texts treated in this work, it is used with at least equal frequency in a more general sense to refer to any kind conceptual or emotional obstruction to enlightenment or nirvāṇa, including the cognitive hindrances as well. Therefore, it may often be taken simply as a synonym for the concept of “hindrance” itself.

36. The Sino-Korean soji jang is the translation of the term provided by Xuanzang in his translations of Yogâcāra works such as the Yogâcārabhūmi, and it is used in the texts of the subsequent Faxiang/Peopsang/Hossō tradition, most importantly in the Cheng weishi lun. The rendering of jijang is predominant in pre-Xuanzang works, whether they be of Yogâcāra or Tathāgatagarbha pedigree.

37. This is the rendering introduced by the Awakening of Faith. Wonhyo will analyze these at length in this treatise.

38. The world of unenlightened sentient beings, as distinguished from the world of saints, bodhisattvas, etc.

39. The terms, “multiplicity of things” and the “thusness of things” are defined in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra at T 1579.30.427c1–7.

40. Different texts name different pairs of cognition, but as a general rule they are divided along the lines of the type of cognition that which operates through pure, nondiscriminating awareness, and that which operates through the discrimination of differences. The latter is interpreted either negatively or positively according to the context, since the discriminating thought that is carried out by unenlightened sentient beings is delusive, while, on the other hand, adept practitioners such as bodhisattvas need to use discriminating awareness to function in the world of language and teach fellow practitioners. In the context of Yogâcāra and the Awakening of Faith tradition, one sees the pair “intrinsic awareness” (geunbon ji) and “subsequently attained awareness” (hudeuk chi), as well as “cognition of totality,” (ilche ji) and “cognition of the particulars” (ilche jong ji). This point, that cognitive obstructions can be categorized into the two main types of (1) obstruction of the insight into underlying reality, and (2) obstruction of the proper function of the discriminating mind can be seen in the discussions of the hindrances by both Huiyuan and Zhiyi expressed as cognitive obstruction in regard to principle, and cognitive obstruction in regard to phenomena.

41. Or “attachment to objective phenomena” (K. beopjip). Yogâcāra teaches that the adherents of the two vehicles are capable of eliminating attachment to the notion of an inherent, enduring self, but remain unaware of their unconscious attachment to the reality of objective phenomena. The bodhisattvas, seeing objective constructs to be empty of an enduring nature, eliminate the cognitive hindrances. This is taught in the Weishi system, but not explicitly in Tathāgatagarbha texts.

42. In other words, it is a problem with the function of cognition itself, as well as the cognized objects that constitute the meaning of this hindrance. As Paul Swanson has shown in his article “Chih-I’s Interpretation of jñeyāvaraṇa: An Application of the Three-Fold Truth Concept,” the question of the subjective/objective character of the hindrances is one that was pursued by Zhiyi, in an insightful and instructive manner. For Zhiyi’s discussion of this point, see T 1911.46.85b22–c26. The ensuing section shows how the clear-cut distinctions made in the standard definition do not necessarily hold up under closer scrutiny.

43. I.e., they do not obscure the cognition of advanced bodhisattvas and buddhas.

44. HBJ offers the alternative of cha (this) for gam (incur), but the latter seems right.

45. Following WSC’s i (principle) instead of HBJ’s i (separate).

46. Soon after explaining the basic way of categorizing the hindrances, Wonhyo has shown that these basic categories really don’t hold true.

47. This is the nomenclature that appears for the first time in the AMF, and tends to be used only in connection with commentaries on that text. This section briefly summarizes the explanation of the hindrances derived from the AMF (T 1666.32.577c20–25). This will later be identified as the “inexplicit” understanding of the hindrances.

48. Six progressively coarser stages of affliction taught in the AMF.

49. As in the prior passage, although the differences between the two are clearly defined, under close analysis there is really no border between the two, and the cognitive obstructions are, to some degree afflictive, and vice versa. This point, that in actuality both kinds of hindrances include to a certain degree the functions of the other is a point that is made in all other significant summaries of the hindrances, including those by Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and the Cheng weishi lun.

50. Over the course of the dozen or so years of time that passed since my embarking on this project until I was able to finally see the manuscript go to print, I changed my way of translating the terms hyeollyo mun (= Skt. nītârtha) and eunmil mun (= Skt. neyârtha) a few times, experimenting with such pairs as exoteric/esoteric, revealed/hidden, evident/abstruse, and so forth. The more I read the text, however, the more I became convinced that Wonhyo’s intention was not to make any special distinction in value between the two approaches, but rather to merely make a distinction in the plainness of the logic involved in each of the systems, this the choice of explicit/inexplicit. As explained at some length in note # in the section on “Wonhyo as Harmonizer,” there are some scholars who take these categories to be value-laden from the perspective of doctrinal classification, with pangyo motivations favoring the Tathāgatagarbha system. I disagree with this, preferring to take the labeling at face value. The Yogâcāra system is rationally systematic, having a readily apprehensible structure. The Tathāgatagarbha system, represented by that of the AMF is convoluted and somewhat nonrational. Thus these labels.

51. Habit energies (K. seupgi; Skt. vāsanā) are created from all of the words, thoughts, actions and external influences experienced by sentient beings. Vāsanās are distinguished from seeds (bīja) by virtue of the fact that they are the traces that remain even after destroying the seeds existent in the ālayavijñāna. According to Yogâcāra, the seeds and the habit energies are removed during the period from the first bhūmi until the tenth. These tendencies are fully eliminated only upon the final attainment of Buddhahood.

52. According to Yogâcāra, all experiential phenomena are divided into the five categories of: mind, mental factors, form, factors (dharmas) not directly associated with mind, and unconditioned dharmas. In the mind group there are eight; within mental factors there are fifty-one, among which are the five which function pervasively, the five that function only in regard to specific objects, the eleven good factors, the six primary afflictions, the twenty derivative afflictions and the four indeterminate factors. In the group of form there are ten, in the group that are not necessarily associated with mind there are twenty-four, in the unconditioned there are six. This altogether totals one hundred. A concise list of these factors is contained in the Dasheng baifa mingmen lun. 1 fasc., by Vasubandhu; trans. Xuanzang. T 1614.31.855b-c

53. The six primary afflictions (K. yuk beonnoe) are the basic forms of affliction from which all of the derivative afflictions are derived. They are: nescience, desire (greed, craving), anger, pride, doubt and false views.

54. The derivative afflictions (K. su beonnoe; Skt. upakleśa) are hybrid afflictions that are derived from various admixtures of the six primary afflictions. In later East Asian Yogâcāra works such as the Cheng weishi lun, there is a standardized list of twenty, but in the Yijangui, based mostly on the YBh, Wonhyo presents a less clearly defined version of this set, which can include between twenty-two and twenty-four mental factors. The standard set provided in the Cheng weishi lun includes: anger, enmity, vexation, concealing, deceit, flattery, haughtiness, harming, jealousy, stinginess, no conscience, shamelessness, no-faith, laziness, indolence, depression, flightiness, forgetting, incorrect knowledge, and distraction.

55. This description of the hindrances bears a strong resemblance to that given in the FDJL at T 1530.26.323a29-b8, as well as that given in the CWSL at T 1585.31.48c5. There are some instructive differences, however. One is that Wonhyo, instead of saying “128 fundamental afflictions as well as derivative afflictions” (which is odd, since it does not reflect the standard Yogâcāra/Weishi chart of the six fundamental afflictions and twenty derivative afflictions), simply says “primary afflictions and derivative afflictions,” which makes more sense. For the cognitive hindrances, he adds in the term “delusive discrimination” (K. mangsang bunbyeol), which is far more commonly seen in the Tathāgatagarbha texts than in the Yogâcāra texts.

56. Ālayavijñāna is usually translated as store consciousness. This is a distinctive concept of the Yogâcāra school of Buddhism, originating in 3–5th century CE India, which refers to the mental processes that underlie each and every moment of the traditional six forms of manifest cognitive awareness (pravṛtti-vijñāna). The ālayavijñāna is said to dependently arise based, on the one hand, on both the material sense faculties and the cognitive and affective formations (saṃskāra) which comprise one’s sentient existence, as well as, on the other hand, its own specific object, an indistinct (asaṃdvidita) apprehension of an external world. It serves as the central locus of accumulated karmic potential and latent afflictions, effectively constituting one’s saṃsāric existence and serving as the virtual “subject” of saṃsāra. It is considered to be the eighth and the most fundamental of the eight consciousnesses established in the doctrine of the Yogâcāra school. The ālayavijñāna accumulates all potential energy for the mental and physical manifestation of one’s existence, and supplies the substance to all existences. It also receives impressions from all functions of the other consciousnesses and retains them as potential energy for their further manifestations and activities. Since it serves as the basis for the production of the other seven consciousness (called the forthcoming consciousnesses), it is also known as the “base consciousness” (mūla-vijñāna), and “causal consciousness.” Since it serves as the container for all experiential impressions (termed metaphorically as “seeds”) it is also called the “seed consciousness.” The eighth consciousness provides a sense of eternality, unity, subjectivity and mastery, resembling an eternal ātman, thus causing the seventh consciousness to mistakenly perceive and attach to a self. For a more extensive explanation of the history of the formation of the notion of the ālayavijñāna, see William Waldron’s essay in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism.

57. Forthcoming consciousnesses— also rendered as “evolving consciousnesses,” “activity consciousnesses,” etc. (K. jeonsik; Skt. pravṛtti-vijñāna) are the seven manifestly functioning consciousnesses that arise based on the ālayavijñāna. These are the manas (mental) consciousness, the mano-vijñāna (thinking consciousness), and the five sense consciousnesses. As Wonhyo will explain, some Yogâcāra scholars considered the existence of the afflictions to be limited to these seven, while others theorized afflictive activity in the ālaya as well.

58. Because anger arises based on conscious thought, and the manas is a subconscious region of the mind.

59. The manovijñāna (K. uisik; Skt. manovijñāna) is the thinking consciousness, which is the sixth among the eight consciousnesses taught in Yogâcāra Buddhism. This consciousness is understood to arise based on the organ of thought, the manas consciousness. It is able to gather and discriminate the sense data derived from the five sense consciousnesses, thus discriminating all the aspects of the environment. It also works with past and future objects, recalling the past and planning for the future. Being based on the manas, it naturally shares some of the manas’ afflictions, but also has its own distinctive afflictions—those kinds of mental function that can only occur in a conscious state.

60. View of self (K. salgaya gyeon; Skt. satkāya-dṛṣṭi) is the view of attachment to self that cannot be extricated from the notions of “I” and “mine”—the view of the real existence of the person. This is one of the four attached views associated with the manas consciousness.

61. This means that the view of the real existence of a person is something that occurs both liminally and subliminally. The manas consciousness (K. manasik) is the seventh of the eight consciousnesses. It is the consciousness that localizes experience through thinking. One of its primary functions is to perceive the subjective position of the ālaya consciousness and erroneously regard it as one’s own ego, thereby creating ego attachment. The manas is characterized in the Cheng weishi lun as “continually examining and assessing.” In this function, it is similar to the sixth (mano) consciousness, but whereas the function of the mano is periodically interrupted (by deep sleep, and other unconscious states), the function of the manas is continuous. While not consciously controllable, the manas is said to motivate conscious decisions in regard to individual survival, and to incessant self-concern.

62. I.e., because they are conscious activities that we are aware of.

63. Using gyeom following the WSC, rather than mu (none) as given in the HBJ.

64. The sippalgye (astādaśa-dhātavah) are the eighteen factors of cognitive experience: the six sense faculties, their six objects and the six consciousnesses.

65. Hyeonyang seonggyo non; abbreviated as Seonggyo non; Skt. *Prakaranâryavāca-śāstra, “Acclamation of the Scriptural Teaching”; T 1602). One of the major Yogâcāra treatises, a combination of verse by Asaṅga, commented on by Vasubandhu. It is considered to be an offshoot of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra. This text contains discussions of all the major Yogâcāra topics, such as the eight consciousnesses, three natures, theories of mental factors, etc. Translated into Chinese by Xuanzang in 645–646 C.E.

66. Pride in the belief that the aggregates are self and are possessed by self. While later commonly understood in the negative sense of pride or conceit, Schmithausen (1977, p. 149–150) understands asmi-māna as simply a “feeling of identity” of self—a sense of ego. T 1602.31.480c16–17

67. There are afflictions, karma, views, etc., that are activity from discrimination (K. bunbyeol gi) and those that are innately active. The former are produced subsequent to birth in this world, depending upon the mistaken thoughts that one generates based on inaccurate conceptions, etc. These afflictions are eliminated in the Path of Seeing. The innately active (K. gusaeng; Skt. sama-utpatti) afflictions, karma, attached views, etc., have been carried over from previous lifetimes, and are therefore more deeply embedded. These are removed during the Path of Cultivation.

68. Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra (K. Yuga saji ron. The “Discourse on the Stages of Concentration Practice.” The definitive text of the Yogâcāra school of Buddhism. One hundred rolls, composed in India between 300 and 350 CE; translated into Chinese by Xuanzang. In the process of explaining the spiritual states, practices and fruits incurred in the course of the seventeen stages leading to Buddhahood, the text delves deeply into discussions of fundamental Yogâcāra concepts such as the ālayavijñāna, three natures, three non-natures, seeds , perfuming , the two hindrances , and consciousness-only.

69. The form realm (K. saek gye; Skt. rūpa-dhātu) which is the second of the three realms is existence constituted of pure materiality, free from the afflictions of the desire realm. Although the desires have subsided, one still possesses a body. It is the locus of the four meditation heavens. The formless realm (K. musaek gye; Skt. ārūpya-dhātu), which is the third of the three realms, is the realm of pure mind, in which materiality (one’s body) is transcended. This realm is characterized by the function of four different types of awareness: (1) the awareness of the limitlessness of emptiness; (2) the awareness of limitless consciousness; (3) the awareness of the limitlessness of nothingness and (4) the awareness of neither thoughtlessness nor non-thoughtlessness.

70. The desire realm (K. yok gye; Skt. kāma-dhātu) is one of the three realms of existence, within which one’s consciousness is subject to the desires for food, sex and sleep. The four delusions of the manas are the four most fundamental afflictions that come about based on the manas consciousness’ perception of the ālayavijñāna to be a self (ātman). The fact of their being arisen in the manas indicates that they are functioning below the level of normal conscious awareness, and are thus not consciously controllable. The four are: are self-nescience (K. aji; Skt. ātma-moha); self-view (K. agyeon; Skt. ātma-dṛṣṭi); the conceit “I am”; (K. aman; Skt. asmi-māna); and self-love (K. a-ae; Skt. ātma-tṛṣṇā).

71. The five consciousnesses (K. osik; Skt. pañca-vijñāna) are the five sense consciousnesses, which are considered to be the first five of the eight consciousnesses. They are produced in connection with the five sense organs of eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, which take as their objects the five physical categories of form, sound, smell, taste and tactile objects. In terms of the three realms, those in the desire realm are said to have six consciousnesses; those in the first meditation heaven of the form realm lack the olfactory and gustatory consciousnesses, while those in the second meditation heaven and above maintain only the sixth (thinking) consciousness.

72. In this passage of the Yogâcārabhūmi, this “mental state of ascertainment” (K. gyeoljeong sim) is the third of three successive stages of mind, preceded by (1) the mental state “as it is” and (2) the “mental state of inquiry,” which correspond to the initial action of one of the sense consciousnesses and subsequent abiding in the manovijñāna.

73. As Wonhyo explains below, once an affliction is in its manifest phase, it does not retain its evil quality: this is the meaning of the moral neutrality of “karmic ripening”.

74. According to standard Yogâcāra presentations of mental functions (such as given in the Cheng weishi lun), sim (discursive thought), sa (investigation), akjak (recognition of one’s evil), and sumyeon (drowsiness) are categorized as being of “indeterminate,” moral quality, which means that they have no predisposition to engender either good or evil activity. For Wonhyo to include them here among the derivative afflictions might seem surprising, but we need to be aware that he is probably writing this at a time when the CWSL has not yet been written, and thus the presently accepted chart of Yogâcāra mental functions has not yet been firmly established. We can guess that he is probably following the YBh, in which at least one passage (cited below), this same arrangement is given.

75. I.e., the four of the five skandhas except for form: i.e., feeling, perception, impulse, and consciousness.

76. Source not identified.

77. The cited passage of the MSB gives an example of how, based on the initial movement of mind toward either attraction or rejection, the object-apprehending mind (eight consciousness), the feeling-experiencing mind (seventh consciousness), and the discriminating mind (sixth consciousness) arise.

78. Here Wonhyo skips over some text in the YBh that says: “The first is the arising that permeates all unwholesome states of mind; the second is the arising that permeates all defiled states of mind; the third is the arising that occurs with separately distinguished states of mind; the fourth is the arising that occurs with wholesome, unwholesome and neutral states of mind.”

79. The derivative afflictions in Yogâcāra are generally numbered at twenty—at least after the publication of the Cheng weishi lun. But here in this citation from the YBh, the additional two mental factors of sexual desire, and mistaken resolve are included. In addition, the text below further indicates that in certain situations discursive thought and investigation can be called derivative afflictions.

80. The first of the four stages of meditation that enable one to remove the delusions attached to in the realm of desire to make way for the bliss of the form realm.

81. According to Kuiji, this distinction in the two positions as to whether or not discrimination is limited to the sixth and seventh consciousnesses or extends to the eighth consciousness can be correlated to disagreements between Sthiramati and Dharmapāla, with Sthiramati stating that it pervades all eight consciousnesses and Dharmapāla maintaining that it is limited to the sixth and seventh. See Kuiji’s commentary to the Madhyânta-vibhāga T 1835.44.4b14–19 and 35a11–18.

82. This same position is taken in the Fodijing lun at T 1530.26.323c8.

83. T 1594.31.139b12, paraphrase.

84. (K. yuru jongja) These are the seeds in the ālayavijñāna that produce all mental and physical phenomena in the conditioned world of cyclic existence, as distinguished from uncontaminated seeds.

85. (K. hunseup). The literal meaning of this term is that of being permeated with an odor, and this image is used as a metaphor to describe the how karma works in the form of various undefiled and defiled dharmas, whereby activities, without fail, leave impressions on the consciousnesses, thus altering them. Thus, the meaning of receiving an impression, or for one thing to have an effect on another thing, especially by habituation. As clothes which have been exposed to perfume gradually come to have that same smell, our own activities of word, thought and deed leave an influence on our mind.

86. (K. gyeongji) In Yogâcāra theory, the mirror cognition is one of the four undefiled cognitive faculties that is the result of the of the transmutation of the various forms of previously defiled consciousness upon becoming a Buddha. In this case it is the pure cognition experienced at Buddhahood by a qualitative transmutation of the eighth consciousness. The mirror cognition reflects all objects without distortion or interference.

87. (K. mugi) Karmic moral indeterminacy (or “neutrality”) constitutes one of the three qualities of all activities (karma)— with the other two being “good” and “bad” (or “wholesome” and “unwholesome”). While the latter two states bring about definite, concomitant karmic effects, indeterminate states do not have a determinable good or evil consequence. Karmic moral indeterminacy is distinguished into the two kinds of “obstructing indeterminacy” and “ nonobstructing indeterminacy.”

88. This passage is not referenced by Wonhyo, but appears almost verbatim in the Fodijing lun at T 1530.26.323b24–c3. There are a number of passages from the Fodijing lun like this, and since Wonhyo is usually careful about citing canonical sources, his lack of citation of this particular source in the Ijangui is a bit of a mystery.

89. Defiled indeterminate quality (K. yubu mugi; Skt. nivṛta-avyākṛta). One of the subdivisions of the class of moral indeterminacy among the hindrances to enlightenment, the complement of nonimpedimentary moral indeterminacy. A mental function that although not determinable as good or evil, has the contaminated aspect of impeding pure perception of reality, for example, the four manifestations of the view of self that are associated with the manas consciousness.

90. The two vehicles (K. iseung) are ridden by the two kinds of practitioners of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. These two kinds of practitioners are regularly introduced in Mahāyāna Buddhist literature where they are cast in a negative light in contradistinction to the bodhisattva as representatives of the so-called “Lesser Vehicle” tradition. They are understood to be practitioners who are engaged in a view toward practice and enlightenment that will permit them to reach the level of arhatship and not Buddhahood. This means that they are able to permanently sever the multitude of afflictions resultant of the three poisons, but they are unable to progress further along the path in the manner of the bodhisattva due to a lack in the development of their compassion and insight into the lack of self-nature in all dharmas.

91. Nonobstructed morally indeterminate mental states (undefiled moral neutrality; K. mubu mugi; Skt. anivṛta-avyākṛta or akliṣṭa-avyākṛta). One of the two kinds of morally neutral categories of mental functioning, the other being obstructed moral indeterminacy. These are mental functions of neutral quality that do not hinder enlightenment, which were originally posited by the Sarvâstivādins, who distinguished four kinds of nonimpedimentary moral indeterminacy. The four kinds of exclusively nonobstructed morally indeterminate mental states (K. sa mugi) are four kinds of morally indeterminate mental functions which also do not create any cognitive obstructions, and which therefore cannot act as impediments. These are (1) karmic results that differ from their causes; (2) mode of deportment, referring to the neutral quality of the thoughts that arise in connection with the moving into certain physical positions; (3) the arts and crafts; (4) the indeterminacy/neutrality of the occurrences that arise through the action of supernatural transformations.

92. The concept of “ripening” or “(differential) ripening” (K. isuk; Skt. vipāka) is a pivotal one in Yogâcāra theories of individuated causality. It describes an important characteristic of the ripening of karma into results, or new phenomena, in that when one thing produces another, the next thing that is produced, while having a direct and close relation to its cause, must also be something different from its cause. Common metaphors include that of the ripening of a fruit, or a baked loaf of bread, which are both quite different in character from their causal stages, and have exhausted their potential for further development. Once good or evil karmas bear their fruit, they lose their positive and negative potentiality, and thus become morally indeterminate. In Yogâcāra usage, the term refers especially to the natural fruition of the latent power of good and evil activities (karma), and is used especially in reference to the ālayavijñāna.

93. Wholesome roots (K. seon-geun; Skt. kuśala-mūla) are virtuous causal actions that bring good rewards. There are generally considered to be three of these: absence of covetousness, absence of antipathy, and absence of folly.

94. This passage is not contained in the YBh as Wonhyo indicates, but is found in the Fodijing lun at T 1530.26.323b13–14.

95. Selflessness of dharmas (or “emptiness of dharmas”; K. beopkong; Skt. dharma-śūnyatā) is the seminal Mahāyāna Buddhist position that says that not only do individual beings lack inherent existence, but the compositional elements of the world from which beings are comprised also lack inherent existence. This is considered by Mahāyānists to be a level of insight that distinguishes them from the practitioners of the two vehicles, who are only able to perceive the emptiness of person. In terms of the two hindrances, the insight of emptiness of dharmas is important for the removal of cognitive hindrances.

96. Selflessness of person (K. ingong, in mua; Skt. pudgala-nairātmya). The lack of the inherent existence of a changeless definitive self, or personality, within the person. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, this is viewed as the first, and not-quite-thoroughgoing level of insight into emptiness, with the next level being selflessness of dharmas.

97. The Madhyânta-vibhāga (K. Jungbyeon bunbyeollon; Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes) is a seminal Yogâcāra text that is considered to have been completed through the joint efforts of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu. The special focus of this text is on the Yogâcāra articulation of the meaning of mistaken discrimination vs. the meaning of emptiness of inherent nature, with the aim of breaking attachment to extreme notions of emptiness and existence.

98. Root consciousness (K. bonsik; Skt. mūla-vijñāna) can generally be understood as a synonym for ālayavijñāna. This is a translation of the term used by Paramârtha, possibly influenced by the original Sarvâstivāda understanding of a root consciousness.

99. Intentional or not, Wonhyo has collapsed two verses together. The source text has dan (“only”) instead of nan 亂 (delusive), but as we see, ultimately the same thing is being discussed, i.e. an originary, amorphous, undefined state of consciousness that appears as objects, faculties, a self, and the six consciousnesses. See T 1599.31.451b7-23.

100. From T 1599.31.451b7–14, fragmentarily. The first twenty words in this citation are four stanzas of a terse verse, which is explained in full in a commentary just afterward.

101. T 1597.31.329c17–18. The portion of this text following this citation contains a detailed explanation of the application of the metaphor of perfuming in regard to moral indeterminacy, the ālayavijñāna, and the forthcoming consciousnesses. One might also want to look at the related discussion in the Cheng weishi lun at T 1585.31.12a24 and following.

102. The terms seeds (K. jongja; Skt. bīja) is used in Yogâcāra as a metaphor to explain the mechanism of individuated cause and effect. “Seeds” are one phase of the latent potentialities of all mental and physical phenomena that are stored in the ālayavijñāna. They come into existence as by receiving the influence of (being “perfumed” by) result of present activities and conditions, and they result in new potentialities, giving rise to continued existence. The ālayavijñāna is in fact made of nothing but countless seeds being created and disappearing in every moment.

103. Contaminated here is a translation of yuru (āsrava). Literally translated into Chinese as “having outflow,” but in Buddhism refers to the fact that if a mental function, whether it be of wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate moral quality, is goal-oriented—thus conditioned—it will tend to further one’s enmeshment into cyclic existence. This occurrence of this contamination is directly associated with the condition of nescience which allows the consciousnesses to be tricked by the illusions of subject and object, like and dislike. The enlightened mind is able to operate without contamination (K. muru; Skt. anāsrava), and thus, the distinction between “contaminated” and “uncontaminated” is analogous between that of mundane and holy, or unenlightened and enlightened.

104. The Path of Seeing (K. gyeon to; Skt. darśana-mārga) is the third of the five stages of attainment in the Yogâcāra school. It is the stage of the observation of the Four Truths, and also the stage at which one enters the level of the uncontaminated supramundane wisdom. It is after entry into this stage that one is considered to be enlightened. In Abhidharma doctrine it is equivalent to the stage of stream-winner and in Mahāyāna, equivalent to the stage of the first bhūmi. After the consummation of this stage, one moves on to the Path of Cultivation, where the correct views attained in the Path of Seeing are thoroughly and repeatedly practiced. The practices of the Path of Seeing are capable of eliminating the afflictions produced by discriminations in this lifetime, but in order to eliminate the afflictions carried over from prior lifetimes, one must enter the Path of Cultivation.

105. The term Path of Skillful Means (K. bangpyeon do; Skt. prayoga-mārga; upāya-mārga) is used somewhat flexibly within various path descriptions to indicate a relatively early stage of practice, wherein one is not yet exercising undefiled wisdom. According to some texts, it is equivalent to the second of the five paths which are stages of religious cultivation in Yogâcāra (the second stage is more commonly termed “stage of applied practices”; kahaeng to). According to the scheme explained the System of the Two Hindrances, the Path of Skillful Means is one of the five sub-paths contained within the Path of Seeing.

106. Mahāyāna Buddhism contains a teaching regarding four positive attributes of Buddhist religious experience (permanence, joy, self, and purity) that are taught as an antidote to the negativity of teachings such as that of emptiness. It would seem that it is this set of four that is being referred to here, except that instead of “purity” (K. cheong), we have “dharma” (K. beop). Since these two characters look similar when written in cursive script, it is not inconceivable that there is a corruption here. The likelihood of this is supported by the fact that this sequence of characters (dharma-self-permanence-joy) does not appear anywhere in the known East Asian canon. The best known locus classicus for the four virtues is the Nirvana Sutra. See, for example, T 374.12.377b19 and following.

107. T 1579.30.625a1–6, with some abridgments.

108. The Ratnagotravibhāga-śāstra (K. Boseongnon; “Jewel-Nature Treatise”) is a mixture of verse and prose, a basic text in the articulation of Tathāgatagarbha thought in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. The treatise explains in detail the theory that all sentient beings, no matter how horrible their crimes, possess the potential to attain Buddhahood. The great power possessed by the buddhas is able to erase the karma of the crimes of such evil persons as icchantikas.

109. In the source text, these are the four errors of: (1) seeing enjoyment instead of suffering; (2) seeing self where one should see no-self; (3) seeing permanence where one should see impermanence, and (4) seeing impurity where one should see purity.

110. “So forth” means that the same application should be made toward thoughts of no-self, suffering, and impurity.

111. T 1611.31.829b20–24. The inclusion of this last line in the citation may not be especially relevant, as, from an examination of the original text, it seems to be the start of the explanation of a new theme, rather than a summation of the prior one.

112. T 1606.31.764a8–13. The text differs significantly from T and KT here. Please see my online version of the Sino-Korean version of the Ijang ui with attached notes.

113. The consciousness that is resultant of maturation. Consciousness that appears as the maturation of prior causes (or seeds); the consciousness that handles the fruitional economy. The fruition of prior karma, is itself karmically neutral—were it not, karma would become hard determinism, since, for instance, bad karma would perpetuate itself endlessly. During the course of the development of the notion of ālayavijñāna, it became necessary to posit this aspect of the consciousness of sentient beings, and thus vipāka-vijñāna becomes an important connotation of the ālayavijñāna. Since the matured effects of prior causes must by nature be indeterminate in terms of their moral quality, this consciousness is said as well be morally indeterminate. It is understood later to also contain the seeds and other latent karmic factors that produce effects within the seven forthcoming consciousnesses.

114. T 1579.30.657a19–23, with abridgements and differences.

115. Inherent kernels (K. bonseong gye jongja; Skt. prakṛti-sthaṃ gotram) are seeds in the ālayavijñāna that are already present at birth as the result of the activities of prior lifetimes. This term is commonly used in reference to the seeds that would determine one’s spiritual proclivities, such as the distinction between potential for śrāvaka, bodhisattva, etc. These “kernels” are far subtler than the seeds that are created from habituation in the present lifetime. In one passage in the YBh that is clearly related, the eighteen realms (dhātus) are classified into the six types of “kernels”: dharma-dhātu, pure dhātu, dhātu of original nature, habituated dhātu, dhātu where the effect is already experienced, and dhātu where the effect is not yet experienced. In this passage, the third and fourth are being cited. See T 1579.30.610a8 ff.

116. Seeds formed by habituation (K. seupseong jongja) are proclivities (seeds) that are cultivated in the present lifetime, which are more coarse and superficial than the inherent seeds with which one is born.

117. The former are recently habituated and the latter are innate.

118. Mahāyāna-sūtrâlaṃkāra (K. Jang-eom non, full title Daeseung chang-eom gyeong non; “Treatise on the Scripture of Adorning the Great Vehicle”). Attributed to Asaṅga, but according to some traditions, the verses were written by Maitreya, and were expanded into prose form by Asaṅga or Vasubandhu. It is an important text for the Yogâcāra school, being one of the eleven treatises that formed the basis for the Cheng weishi lun. It is comprised of twenty-four chapters, the content of which is almost exactly the same as that of the Chapter of the Bodhisattva Stages in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, most of important discussions being in regard to: the bodhisattvas' seeds, arousal of the intention to save sentient beings, faith and understanding, six perfections, and the merits of practice. This citation from the Mahāyāna-sūtrâlaṃkāra occurs in the midst of an explanation of objective marks (which are the five categories of the one hundred dharmas) and subjective marks. The sentence prior to this says “we will now discuss the various subjective marks.” T 1604.31.613c13

119. Wonhyo has here omitted the introductory portion of this passage, which says: “There are in general, three kinds of subjective marks. These are called the marks of discrimination, the marks of dependent arising, and the marks of true reality...”

120. T 1604.31.613c14–24, with abridgements.

121. (K. arahan). In early Indian texts, the stage of arhat is the final goal of Buddhist practice—the attainment of nirvāṇa, which means the complete elimination of affliction, and the end of rebirth into the world of suffering. In Mahāyāna texts, the arhat, (or the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha who is practicing towards arhatship) is placed in the position of foil for the Mahāyāna hero, the bodhisattva, and thus these practitioners of the two vehicles, are disparaged as adherents of the “Lesser Vehicle,” said to be engaged in practices that are self-centered and incomplete in the wisdom of emptiness.

122. This passage in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra describes various forms of bad behavior seen in arhats despite the fact that they have eradicated all afflictions. The text cited here is an abbreviation of the source passage at T 1579.30.738b29–738c1.

123. T 1509.25.649c15–16. This is a story that appears in a number of Buddhist scriptures about an arhat named Pilinda-vatsa. He was said to be a master of tantric spells, but gave these up upon becoming a disciple of the Buddha. He had lived many lifetimes as an upper class Brahman, and thus had long cultivated upper class airs, and still tended to address others as if they were śūdras. Once, while passing along the Ganges River, he ordered the god of the rivers, Varuṇa, to make the Ganges stop flowing. Varuṇa was infuriated by this, and complained to Śākyamuni, who ordered Pilinda-vatsa to repent.

124. The HBJ and WSC versions have disagreement regarding the usage of ru (漏 contamination) and yeom (染 defilement, pollution). While there are cases in Abhidharma and Yogâcāra texts these might be seen as synonymous, I read ru here as being used for its original, concrete connotations of “leaking” or “dripping” as is indicated by the term rusu 漏水. There may also be a double meaning in the usage of the term rusu here, which is also listed in dictionaries as a method for the running of ancient clocks. Hence the energy from “leaking water” would have a positive effect. Therefore I do not go along with the WSC’s change from ru to yeom.

125. (K. seongmun) The Skt. śrāvaka here originally refers to a direct disciple of the Buddha (who heard his voice). In later Mahāyāna texts, this is a technical term with somewhat negative connotations. While śrāvakas are disciplined monk-practitioners who contemplate the principle of the Four Truths for the purpose of the attainment of arhat-ship, and thus eventually nirvāṇa, they are also considered along with the pratyekabuddhas (“solitary realizers”), to be a practitioner of the two Lesser Vehicles, inferior in insight and compassion to the bodhisattva. This is because their practice is said to be self-centered, focusing on their own salvation, a selfishness that is made possible by their lack of recognition of the emptiness of all objective dharmas

126. (K. byeokji bul, yeongak, dokgak) Skt. pratyekabuddha is translated as “enlightened by contemplation on dependent arising.” One of two kinds of Lesser Vehicle sages (the other being the śrāvaka s), whose practice, according the Mahāyāna scriptures, is aimed toward the “lesser” goal of arhatship, rather than toward complete Buddhahood. The first Chinese rendering of the term emphasizes the method by which the practitioner attains the goal, which is by analyzing the principle of the twelve-part conditioned origination. The second rendering refers to the fact that this practitioner attains liberation through his or her own study and effort, not relying on the sermons of a teacher, and staying alone, absorbed in contemplation.

127. T 1611.31.823b8–11. The line here as cited by Wonhyo has significant differences (mainly omissions) from the source text which make it difficult to translate without looking at the source. Please see the note in the Sinitic text above.

128. In the Yogâcāra system, there are fifty-one dharmas allotted to the category of mental factors (K. sim soyu beop, Skt. caitasika-dharma), which are divided in six groups: (1) five factors that always functioning; (2) five factors that function only in reference to specific objects; (3) eleven positive factors; (4) six primary afflictions; (5) twenty derivative afflictions, and (6) the four indeterminate factors.

129. The adamantine concentration (K. geumgang yujeong; Skt. vajra-upama-samādhi), also rendered by translators as “diamond-like samādhi,” or “adamantine absorption,” is a state of deep meditative trance where all of the subtlest defilements are destroyed, and which is the final stage of bodhisattva practice. Mahāyāna schools state that this is the highest meditative state attainable in Lesser Vehicle practices—the highest attainment of the arhat, and that in their own system, it is considered to be the same as “equal enlightenment.” In Yogâcāra, this state of concentration occurs in the consummating stage of practice.

130. In view of the context, it seems that the character zhong  may be mistakenly inserted for xi .

131. Using yi 異(“differ”) from the Taishō source text, rather than ip 立 (“establish”) as in the HBJ.

132. In view of the context, it seems that the character chu (heavy) may be mistakenly inserted for xi (subtle).

133. HBJ 693c21–23.

134. HBJ 1.693c21–23; T 1845.44.237c20–29. The Expository Notes will be translated in this series by Sung Bae Park.

135. This explanation of the cognitive hindrances, of being unable to proper distinguish external phenomena, could be linked with the Yogâcāra definition of being attached to dharmas.

136. The (Bosal yeongnak) Bon-eop gyeong (T 1485.24.1010b-1023a). Like the Flower Ornament Sutra, Sutra for Humane Kings, and Sutra of Brahma’s Net, this scripture discusses the course of the bodhisattva’s practice through the fifty-two stages, the pure precepts, the ten pāramitā s, etc. The only known commentary that dealt with this sutra exclusively was that done by Wonhyo, of which only the second fascicle remains.

137. Directive karma (K. in-eop) draws one into overarching conditions, such as that of the species that one is a member; also called chongpo (“general reward karma”) This is contrasted to particularizing karma which determines the precise characteristics of one’s rebirth.

138. Particularizing karma (K. saeng-eop) determines precise conditions in one’s rebirth, such as one’s personality, level of intelligence, social status, and so forth. This karma contrasts with directive karma, which determines more general conditions, such as the species into which one is born.

139. Nescience is the first of the twelve limbs of dependent arising; thirst is the eighth, and grasping is the ninth.

140. The Path of Cultivation (K. su to, Skt. bhāvanā-mārga) is the fourth of the five stages of Yogâcāra practice, the second of the three supramundane paths. After the experience of the Path of Seeing (K. gyeondo), the practitioner renews his/her efforts based on this new insight, seeking further accordance with reality. The afflictions that are eliminated in this path are the more deeply embedded innate afflictions, whereas the practices of the prior Path of Seeing is able to eliminate the less deeply embedded afflictions produced by discrimination.

141. In terms of the present arrangement of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra in the Korean and Taishō canons, this would actually be an earlier, rather than later sentence.

142. This citation is greatly abridged from the full text at T 1579.30.282a13–16.

143. This section is also greatly abridged from the full text at T 1606.31.714b27–c6.

144. The stage of nothingness (K. musoyu jeo; Skt. ākiṃcanya-āyatana) is a meditative state in which nothing exists whatsoever. The name of the third of the four loci of the formless realm—the third of the four formless concentrations.

145. The summit of material existence (K. yujeong; Skt. bhava-agra) is the fourth and highest heaven of the form realm.

146. Seop taeseung non seok. Asaṅga’s commentary on the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha by his brother Vasubandhu; translated into Chinese by Paramârtha. Following the text to which it is a commentary, this work gives extensive treatment to all of the major Yogâcāra theories regarding consciousness-only, including the ālayavijñāna, affliction, seeds, perfuming, etc.

147. T 1595.31.167b29–c1. The cited text is abbreviated, and cannot properly be read without seeing the full source text.

148. The Treatise on Buddha-nature (K. Bulseong non) is attributed to Vasubandhu (but this attribution is not taken seriously), translated by Paramârtha. This treatise discusses the theory of Buddha-nature in great detail in sixteen chapters. In the course of explaining how it is that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, the mistaken views of non-Buddhists and lesser-vehicle practitioners are refuted. The author cites extensively from the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Lotus Sutra, and the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra.

149. The four realizations (K. sagwa; Skt. catvāri-phalāni 四果) are the four attainments (lit. “fruits”) of the śrāvaka path: (1) “stream-winner;” (2) “once-returner;” (3) “nonreturner,” and (4) “arhat.” The stream-winner succeeds in eradicating conceptual disturbances of the three realms (also called the eighty-eight afflictions), experiences the fifteen minds of the Path of Seeing, and finishing this task, enters the Path of Cultivation, thus consummating this stage. Entering into the stage of once-returner, the practitioner removes the first six of the nine qualities of afflictions of the Path of Cultivation and thus consummates this stage. One then proceeds to enter the level of nonreturner, where one eliminates the remaining three afflictions to consummate this stage. In the final stage of arhat, all afflictions have been permanently eradicated, and the practitioner is capable of entry into nirvāṇa.

150. A nonreturner (K. bulhwan; Skt. anāgāmin). A practitioner of the path of the śrāvaka who has attained the third of the four stages, which is that of freedom from rebirth in the desire realm.

151. The three kinds of causes/conditions for rebirth (samjong yeonsaeng): That from reaching the limits of birth and death (gung saengsa yeonsaeng 窮生死緣生); that from the path of attachment and nonattachment (ae biae do yeonsaeng) and that of receiving [a body] for enjoyment (suyong yeonsaeng).

152. The three kinds of perfuming (samjong hunseup) are: (1) perfuming by linguistic expressions; (2) perfuming by self-view, and (3) the perfuming according to one’s existence (i.e., in one of the three realms or six destinies). See T 1593.31.117c2.

153. The two kinds of causes of rebirth are taught in the Compendium of the Great Vehicle at T 1593.31.115b10–12; the three kinds of habituation are taught in the same text at T 1593.31.117c2.

154. Overwhelming contingencies (K. jeungsang yeon) constitute one of the four kinds of causation in Yogâcāra causal theory. It refers to “conditions related to the absence or presence of empowerment,” meaning all the causes that aid the main causes of the production of existences, plus the conditions that, though not directly contributing to the cause, do not impede. For all occasions, when one thing is produced, there are various influencing and controlling factors.

155. Following Wayman in his translation of the Śrīmālā-sūtra ( Alex and Hideko Wayman, The Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā), I have used the term “entrenched” here to indicate the new dimension of nescience and affliction that Wonhyo now brings to our attention through the designation of the Inexplicit interpretation—mumyeong juji. The implications here are primarily those of “latency” as distinguished from manifest activity. It would make sense to simply render this in English as “latent,” if not for the fact that the latent afflictions are already a significant and distinct technical category in the previously described Explicit meaning of the hindrances, and so it would probably be clearer if we use another term for the sake of consistency in indicating latency in this new context. Also, the term “entrenched” conveys a connotation of embeddedness that is clearly appropriate. When this term is used, the reader should understand that it is referring specifically to the Inexplicit aspect of the latent hindrances as derived from the discourse of the Awakening of Faith, Śrīmālā-sūtra, Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra, and Benye jing.

156. Miraculous birth-and-death 變易生死 (K. byeonyeok saengsa; Skt. parinamiki-jarā-maraṇa). The cyclical existence experienced by enlightened bodhisattvas, as opposed to the fragmentary birth-and-death experienced by unenlightened people.

157. The four unconstructed truths (K. mujak saje) refer to an understanding of the principle of the Four Truths in the sense of reality as-it-is, without relying on the explanation of the law of cause and effect. As contrasted to the Four Constructed Truths, which are the Four Truths explained in their ordinary sense in the context of the law of cause and effect.

158. T 353.12.220a16–18. According to the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra Bodhisattvas have three kinds of mind-made bodies: (1) the body mentally produced from enjoyment of meditative absorption. These are produced by bodhisattvas in the third to fifth grounds; (2) the body mentally produced from the nature of enlightenment. These are produced by bodhisattvas at the eighth ground; (3) the body mentally produced by various types of beings together functioning without effort or obstruction. These are produced by bodhisattvas in the ninth and tenth ground. See T 670.16.497c26 ff.

159. The three kinds of contamination (K. samnu; Skt. traya-āsravāḥ 三漏) are the contamination of desire, the contamination of existence, and the contamination of nescience. In other words, the contaminations of the three levels of existence: the realms of desire, form, and no-form.

160. The citation from the Ratnagotravibhāga is from T 1611.31.834b25–c1 and the citation from the Śrīmālā-sūtra is from T 353.12.221b25–26. This citation of the Śrīmālā Sutra contained in this form within the Ratnagotravibhāga, and apparently that is the way Wonhyo is citing it.

161. The term “conflict between the hindrances and their correction” is defined in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra on T 1579.30.501b6, as a situation where one is trying to conduct a pure religious practice in the midst of an impure, afflicted condition, and thus there is conflict.

162. It must be understood from this that the entrenchment of nescience is being clearly distinguished from the mistake of discriminating objective dharmas.

163. The marks of conditions are the first of the four kinds of hindrances listed at this point in the Ratnagotravibhāga. The remaining three are the hindrance of the marks of causes, the hindrance of the marks of arising, and the hindrance of the marks of destruction.

164. The Sutra of Neither Increase nor Decrease (K. Bujeung bulgam gyeong) is a short tathāgatagarbha text that discusses the relationship between sentient beings and the dharmakāya (or dharmadhātu) as being one of equivalence within the medium of the tathāgatagarbha.

165. Citation not located.

166. Remaining, then, would be the view of the existence of a self, extreme views, desire, anger, pride, and nescience.

167. T 1579.30.313b21–28; abridged. The ten kinds of afflictions have been defined in the prior paragraph of the YBh, where it has also been explained that these ten are multiplied by twelve variations of the Four Truths within the three realms to produce a total of 120 afflictions.

168. I.e., desire, anger and pride.

169. To explain this point, Wonhyo uses an unreferenced passage from the YBh. He leaves out the first sentence of this passage, which says: “It is not without nescience that afflictions come into being, therefore the nescience that accompanies the production of all afflictions such as greed and so forth is called associated nescience....”T 1579.30.622a13. The next line in the text follows on this.

170. From T 1579.30.622a11–15.

171. 17 fasc. T 1521.26.20–123. The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā-śāstra (K. Sipju bibasa ron) is a commentary on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra attributed to Nāgârjuna, translated by Kumārajīva around 405 CE. It consists primarily of an explanation of the fifty-two bodhisattva stages; it also contains one of the early expositions regarding Amitâbha.

172. This passage is found not in the Guang lun as Wonhyo has indicated, but in the Abhidharma-vibhāṣā śāstra 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 T 1546.28.30b26–29. One possible explanation for this confusion may be the fact that both texts are originally 100 fascicles in length.

173. Attachment to [wrong] discipline (K. kyegeum ch’wi; Skt. śīla-vrata-parāmarśa) is the mistaken view of misunderstanding the path of discipline and considering it to be the true cause of cessation of suffering when it is not, and holding to it as the true path, though it is not. Also, the view that the austerities, moral practices and vows of non-Buddhist sects can lead one to the truth—trying to seek salvation by means of the austerities of the non-Buddhist Indian schools of philosophy. This general type of attachment is also distinguished into the two types of “precepts-only” attachment and “upside down (i.e., inverted)” attachment. In the Yogâcāra system, it is counted as one of the five mistaken views.

174. For understanding exactly how it is that the views that deny the path are generated by devout practitioners, it is helpful to read Wonhyo’s explication of the precept against slandering the dharma, contained in his Beommanggyeng bosal gyebon sagi. See HBJ 1.603a, and the translation in this series by Eun-su Cho, titled Personal Exposition on the Bodhisattva Precepts Chapter in the Sutra of Brahma’s Net.

175. In the line of this text just prior to where Wonhyo begins his citation, the “three circumstances” are defined as (1) the circumstances that are the perceptual referents for conceptual elaborations; (2) the circumstances of self-view and pride, and (3) the circumstances of greed and so forth.

176. “Two” as found in the HBJ and WSC is changed to “three” to agree both with the source text and the thread of the current discussion.

177. The five sense faculties and the thinking consciousness.

178. The six objects of the sense faculties.

179. Wonhyo is probably referring here to the fourth of the four levels of apprehension of reality (S. tattvârtha; K. chinsil ui) taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra and other texts. These are, briefly: (1) The expression of truth in everyday speech (i.e. generally shared linguistic convention), wherein sentient beings, when seeing the earth, call it earth, and when seeing fire, call it fire, without confusion. (2) Reality as formulated by accurate reasoning. The reality accepted by the intelligent based on direct perception, inference, authoritative validity, and other forms of accepted logical reasoning. (3) Reality as formulated by the cognition purified of the afflictive hindrances. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are able, based on untainted expedient cognition, accurate cognition, and subsequently obtained cognition, to eradicate the afflictive hindrances, obtaining pure cognition and unimpeded cognition. (4) Reality as formulated by the cognition purified of the cognitive hindrances. Bodhisattvas are able to free themselves from the cognitive hindrances and actualize the truth of the middle way, experiencing the world through true cognition. See T 1579.30.486b8.

180. T 1581.30.895b7–8. The Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra (K. Bosal jiji gyeong). 10 fasc.; T 1581.30.888–959. Translated into Chinese by Dharmakṣema, it is said to be the teaching of Maitreya as recorded by Asaṅga. It explains in detail the practices of the Mahāyāna Bodhisattva, especially the Mahāyāna disciplines. It was also translated by Guṇabhadra into the nine fascicle Pusa shanjie jing T 1582 and by Xuanzang as part of the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra. Sanskrit and Tibetan versions are also extant.

181. Wonhyo is now establishing a new level of internality/externality or latency/manifestation. In the first section on the substance of the hindrances, he distinguished the standard forms of affliction into actively binding forms, and latent forms. The distinction he is making here is somewhat different, in the sense that this new category of “arisen” includes afflictions in both their actively binding form and their latent form. This means that he sees the level of “entrenchment” as being something deeper than the notion of “latent” as a translation of the Sanskrit anuśaya. “Entrenchments” in this case seems to be something more like a vague, undifferentiated fertile ground. In the commentarial works of specialists of comparative Yogâcāra/Tathāgatagarbha doctrine, the notion of entrenchments is usually associated with that of Yogâcāra seeds (bījas) which are indeed a different category than anuśaya.

182. In this case, the term ae (love, attachment) is used as a general term to refer to the five gross afflictions, including attraction, hatred, pride, etc.

183. Noting that the logograph hok is used in the subsequent five items, it should probably also be here, instead of beonnoe.

184. Taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra at T 1579.30.730a9.

185. In view of the context, no doubt “two” as given in the HBJ should be “three.”

186. That is, the six perfections.

187. The highest worldly meditative state (K. se jeil beop). In Abhidharma Buddhism, this is the fourth rank of the four wholesome roots, which is the last that contains contamination. Occurring at the end of the stage of applied practices, the practitioner subsequently enters the Path of Seeing. In Yogâcāra this occurs during the first bhūmi, whereupon one enters the Path of Seeing.

188. The subsequently attained cognition (Skt. pṛṣṭha-labdha-jñāna; K. hudeuk ji) is the knowledge attained as a result of enlightenment that the bodhisattvas use for the task of liberating other sentient beings. Buddhas and bodhisattvas are able to utilize their discriminating capacities after attaining enlightenment, but without reifying and appropriating notions regarding their own selfhood or the intrinsic reality of objects. The existence of this clear function means that they understand and take advantage of conventional “realities” and are thus not “disconnected” from the world.

189. Wonhyo’s Ildo jang 一道章 is not extant.

190. The sixteen mental states (K. sibyuk sim) are comprised of the eight kinds of tolerance and eight kinds of wisdom.

191. The higher and lower eight truths (K. sangha palche): The higher are those of the form realm and formless realm, and the lower are those of the desire realm.

192. Possession of the divine eye implies a vision not obstructed by physical matter.

193. These five characteristics are also introduced and explained in the Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra at T 671.16.558a6–20.

194. Therefore, Buddhist practices of self-cultivation cannot be carried out by the manas (nor by the ālayavijñāna, as we will see just below) and must be carried out by the manovijñāna, which is by definition involved in the world at the conscious level. For a detailed explanation of this, see Living Yogâcāra: An Introduction to Consciousness-only, esp. chapters five through seven.

195. The Treatise on the Sutra of the Ten Stages (K. Sipji gyeong non; Skt. Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra; Daśabhūmikabhāsya), by Vasubandhu, is an explanation of the “Ten Stages” chapter of the Huayan jing which covers many seminal topics, such as the eight consciousnesses, nescience, the three bodies of the Buddha, the three cumulative rules of discipline, the cause and effect aspects of Buddhahood, etc. The Chinese Dilun school was established based on this treatise, and the Huayan school used it to explain many of its teachings.

196. The ten bodhisattva grounds (K. sipji; Skt. daśabhūmi) are the forty-first through the fiftieth stages in the path of the bodhisattva, which are usually referred to as one through ten. Each of the stages is associated with the subjugation or elimination of a certain type of obstruction to enlightenment.

197. (adhimukti-caryā-bhūmi) A reference to the stages of Preparation and Application that are undertaken before the Stage of Seeing.

198. Paramârtha’s Wuxiang lun is not extant as a single work, but some of the portions that originally combined to form it are available in: the San wuxing lun (T 1617), the Zhuanzhi lun (T 1587), and Xianshi lun (T 1618). See Diana Paul, Philosophy of Mind in Sixth Century China, p. 94. This passage was located in the Zhuanshi lun (Treatise on the Forthcoming Consciousnesses) T 1587.31.62a18.

199. The original text in Taishō differs significantly from what is contained in the Ijang ui. Please see Taishō or my online edition of the text.

200. This line is cited in the same way in several other treatises, but the original source is unclear.

201. Mind-king (K. simwang) is an East Asian (i.e., not found in the Indian Yogâcāra documents) term for the mind proper, consisting of the eight consciousnesses, as distinguished from mental factors, states, or functions.

202. The Flower Ornament Sutra (K. Hwaeomgyeong; Skt. Avataṃsaka-sūtra) is one of the most influential texts in East Asian Buddhism. It describes a cosmos of infinite realms upon realms, mutually containing each other. The vision expressed in this work was the foundation for the creation of the Huayan school of Buddhism, which was characterized by a philosophy of interpenetration. The sūtra is also known for its detailed description of the course of the bodhisattva’s practice through fifty-two stages.

203. The only place where I have been able to find this phrase, or something close to it, is in the Zhengshi lun at T 1646.32.289b4, but this would not, strictly speaking, be considered as a Mahāyāna work.

204. Here the terms “stifling” 損伏 and “quelling” can be understood as being basically synonymous, just being written with a different combination of Sino-Korean logographs. We would have just translated both with “quell,” but there is a point below in the text where the two terms are distinguished, and thus we are forced to render with some kind of differentiation.

205. This elaboration of these three kinds of stifling is a summary of a longer discussion in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra at T 1579.30.583c16.

206. T 1579.30.675b6–7 (paraphrase). Either Wonhyo had access to a version of the Yogâcārabhūmi different from that in our possession, or the rest of this passage is his own interpolation, as it is not contained in the Yogâcārabhūmi, nor have I been able to locate in another text.

207. The four kinds of purified cognition (Skt. catvāri-jñāni). In Yogâcāra, The four kinds of pure cognition attained upon the full enlightenment of the Buddha, first introduced in Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha. These are : (1) “mirror cognition” (Skt. ādarśa-jñāna), the purified form of the eighth consciousness, the ālayavijñāna. (2) “cognition of equality in nature” (Skt. samatā-jñāna), a purified form of the seventh consciousness, the manas. (3) “wondrous observing cognition” (Skt. pratyavekṣa-jñāna) the purified form of the sixth, mano-vijñāna and, (4) “cognition with unrestricted activity” (Skt. kṛtya-anusthāna-jñāna), the purified form of the five sense consciousnesses.

208. This interpretation would then be new wrinkle on the standard characterization of the relationship of adherents of the two vehicles with the afflictive hindrances, wherein these hindrances are usually defined as that which can be eliminated by those practitioners.

209. The sa muryang sim are four mental states (Skt. catvāri-apramānāna) of immeasurable concern for others, cultivated by bodhisattvas, and not necessarily by practitioners of the two vehicles: (1) immeasurable mind of kindness (maitrī); (2) immeasurable mind of pity (karuṇā); (3) immeasurable mind of joy (muditā) on seeing others freed from suffering, and (4) immeasurable mind of impartiality (upekṣa), i. e. rising above these emotions, or giving up all things, e. g. distinctions of friend and enemy, love and hate, etc..

210. In the section of the YBh that Wonhyo is alluding to here, this first kind of practitioner is defined by the technical term, “not yet free from desire.”

211. Based on T 1579.30.436b14.

212. See T 1579.30.628c16–17 and 539c1–20.

213. Stage of warmth (K. nanwi; Skt. uṣma-gata). In the way that the presence of heat is an omen for fire, when one approaches the fire of the undefiled wisdom of the Path of Seeing that scorches the afflictions, one feels the “heat” when he or she reaches to the immediately prior (still defiled) stage of wholesome roots. This is described as a level of understanding that is close to the realization of the principle of the Four Truths.

214. While this line is indeed cited in T 1606 (Mahāyānâbhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā), I have not been able to identify the Zhiduan jing.

215. This entire citation is from the *Abhidharma-samuccaya. We There are a few texts that use Fenbie jing as an abbreviated title, such as the Enan fenbie jing (T 495), but since I have not been able to locate this passage in the canon, it is not clear whether this comes from any of them.

216. Various texts provide three different viable alternative for hae (disable) here. See the online version of the Sino-Korean text for discussion.

217. The sixteen mental states are comprised of the eight kinds of tolerance and eight kinds of wisdom. (Skt. ṣoḍaśa-citta)

218. The Sutra for Humane Kings (K. Inwang gyeong) is a prajñāpāramitā sūtra about a humane king who protects his country. May have been originally composed in East Asia. Includes an explanation of the thirteen aspects of emptiness, the fourteen kinds of tolerances, the two truths, etc. Translated into English by Charles Orzech.

219. In order to allow this passage to be apprehensible, we have supplemented the large amount of missing text from the original source

220. The stage of no further application (K. muhak ; aśaikṣa) is a level of practice where one no longer needs religious training—another name for an arhat who has completed the course of practice. One who has attained the state of arhat has already abandoned all defilement, so there remains nothing to learn and practice. It is the last of the four stages of the śrāvaka path.

221. The Laṅkâvatāra-sūtra (K. Imneungga gyeong; “Sutra on (the Buddha’s) Entering (the Country of) Lanka”) is a relatively late Mahāyāna sūtra that combines discussion of Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha concepts. This mixture allowed it to be used in East Asia as a basic canonical text by both the Faxiang and Chan sects in presenting their distinctive approaches to practice and enlightenment.

222. In the Mahāyāna path scheme, the thirty stages of “ten abodes”, “ten practices”, and “ten dedications of merit.”

223. The markless abode with no applied practices and no exertion (K. mu kahaeng mu kongyong musang chu) is the tenth of the twelve abodes of the bodhisattvas taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra.

224. The last of the twelve bodhisattva abodes as taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra.

225. The abode of perfect bliss (K. geughwanhui chu) is the third of the twelve abodes of bodhisattvas taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, wherein the bodhisattva abides in pure unimpeded mental bliss.

226. In the source text, this discussion goes through each of the ten bodhisattva ground s, most of which Wonhyo has skipped over here,

227. It would seem that this double negative here is incorrect. If we eliminate either fei or bu, the line makes sense the way it is translated here.

228. The source text, which is in verse format, is different enough to warrant some attention. Please see Taishō or my online version at .

229. This line is not found in the Sutra for Humane Kings, but in the Benye jing.

230. Wonhyo severely abbreviates the source text, which is part of long passage that conducts a cryptic exercise of reductio ad absurdum via the two truths. T 1485.24.1018b28-c2.

231. A summary of T 353.12.220a16–20

232. The seven grounds are seven stages of practices taught in the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra that are defined in terms of their relation to the twelve abodes.

233. Somewhat altered, but basically the same as YBh T 1579.30.736c27.

234. The twenty-two faculties include: the six organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; the three faculties of male, female, and life; the five sensations of joy, suffering, pleasure, anxiety, and detachment; the five wholesome roots of faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom; the three undefiled faculties of that which is to be known, that which is already known, and endowed wisdom. (Skt. dvāviṃśatîndriyāṇi)

235. is a school of Indian philosophy that is the oldest of the so-called 'six non-Buddhist schools' of Indian philosophy. The Sanskrit vaiśeṣika literally means 'referring to the distinctions ().' The Vaiśeṣika chiefly occupied themselves, like the orthodox philosophy, with the theory of knowledge.

236. The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (or Satyasiddhi-śāstra; Ch. Chengshi lun); 16 fasc. T 1646.32.239-375; attributed to Harivarman (c. 250-350), translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva. A scholastic text that analyzes all factors of cognitive experience into eighty-four types while giving extensive treatment to the concept of emptiness, asserting that all existence is nominal in a way close to that of Mahāyāna. The doctrine of this work is to be regarded as the pinnacle of philosophical development attained by the Hīnayāna schools, marking a transitional stage between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.

237. In Chapter One of the Zhuangzi it says: “If you are going a thousand li, you need three months to gather provisions.”

238. Wonhyo is referring here to the two major approaches defined in Buddhist debate, most seminally represented in the East Asian Buddhist tradition of his time by the Xuanzang’s translation of Dignāga’s Nyāyamukha (K. Inmyeong cheongni mun non pon) which is organized according to the two categories of proof and refutation.

239. The importance of this discussion for Wonhyo is evident, as he takes it up in at least two other places besides here. One of these is contained in his Critique of Inference, translated in this volume. It can also be seen in Wonhyo’s Kisillon so at T 1844:44.212c12–20, which goes like this: “Question: How can we know that the seventh-manas does not only take the ālayavijñāna as referent, but also takes the six objects as referent? Answer: There are two kinds of proofs. The first is through logical argumentation, and the second is by citing scriptural authority. There are two kinds of inference: (1) the proof of valid claims; (2) the refutation of invalid claims. From the approach of logical argumentation, this mental faculty (manas) necessarily shares the same objects with the thinking consciousness (mano). This is the positing of the tenet. Since they do not necessarily share the same bases [i.e., there may be the case where the manas has a different base than the mano ] this is the articulation of the cause. Thus, while having their own special bases, their dependents must be the same objects [otherwise they would have nothing in common whatsoever]. It is like the visual faculty [and other sense faculties]. Although they are discussed as being of the same general type, there are times when they do not share the same objects, yet they definitely cannot have their own distinct bases [because the five sense consciousnesses take the same underlying consciousness as their base. This proof from the perspective of the five sense consciousnesses is being made in the opposite direction from that of the prior case of manas and mano in terms of bases and objects.] As in the sequential extinction of the mental faculty and so forth, this is an explanation based on a contrasting situation [since the relation between bases and objects between the manas and mano, and among the five sense consciousnesses are opposite.] This kind of argument based on example is without error. Therefore you should know that the mental faculty (manas) also takes the six sense objects as referent.”

240. (Skt. viruddha-avyabhicārin, anaikāntika-viruddhâvyabhicārin). The sixth of six errors of indeterminacy in the reason. “Being counterbalanced;” i. e. two syllogisms yield mutual1y opposite conclusions. The case where two reasons (offered by the proponent and opponent) are established to support two separate and mutually conflicting theses. Each of their reasons satisfies the three requirements of a reason. Even though the reasons are sufficient for their own individual positions, they are insufficient for refuting the opponent’s assertion, therefore a conclusion to one’s own proposition cannot be claimed. Thus these reasons have brought about the conclusion of mutually contradictory arguments. For example the syllogism, “/Sound is impermanent / because it is created / like pottery/” and the syllogism “/Sound is eternal / because it is audible / like the essence of sound/” are proposed even though they are mutually contradictory, and neither of the discussants can refute the other’s position. See the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (search for viruddha-avyabhicārin).

241. (K. tongbeop yu; Skt. sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta). In Buddhist logic, an example that is the same in type as the thesis, that is to be proved, and which includes the meaning of the reason. This, and related concepts are explained in greater detail in Wonhyo’s Critique of Inference, translated in this volume.

242. Wonhyo’s Expository Notes to the Awakening of Faith is part of the combined commentary on that text that is being translated by Sung Bae Park for this series.

243. The reference of sagu is not supplied. The most common application of this term seen in Wonhyo’s texts is the four logical possibilities of Madhyamaka: (Skt. catuṣkoṭi)—the four terms of differentiation, e. g. of all things into A, not-A, both A and not-A, neither A nor not-A .

244. In Yogâcāra, a division into four types, of the causes that produce all phenomena. These are explained in such texts as the Yogâcārabhūmi and the Cheng weishi lun The four causes are: (1) direct internal causes that produce a result (hetu-pratyaya). This refers to a directly produced effect within a person—seeds and their manifestations. The production by the seeds in the ālaya consciousness of the world cognized through the seven consciousnesses. (2) Similar and immediately antecedent conditions (saṃanantara-pratyaya). Since the prior instant of mind/mental functioning gives rise directly to the succeeding instant of mind, there is no gap in their leading into one another. (3) “Referent as condition” (ālambana-pratyaya). For the mind to arise, its object must be present, so every object becomes a cause for the mind. (4) (adhipati-pratyaya) “Overwhelming causes” i.e., contributory factors as causes. This group includes all kinds of inexplicit peripheral causes and contingences the lie outside of the three prior, relatively direct types of causation. This includes not only those things which contribute to the production of results, but also factors which aid merely by their not serving to impede or hinder.

245. Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra Weimo jing. This scripture is considered one of the most profound, as well as literarily excellent of the Indian Mahāyāna sūtras. The sutra expounds the deeper principle of Mahāyāna as opposed to lesser vehicle teachings, focusing on the explication of the meaning of nonduality. A significant aspect of the scripture is the fact that it is a teaching addressed to high-ranking Buddhist disciples through the mouth of the layman bodhisattva Vimalakīrti, who expounds the doctrine of emptiness in depth, eventually resorting to silence. There are three translations extant: the Weimojie suoshuo jing (trans. by Kumārajīva; T 475.14.537a-557b), the Shuo wugoucheng jing (6 fasc. trans. Xuanzang; T 476.14.557–587) and the Weimojie jing (2 fasc. trans. Zhi Qian ; T 474.14.519–536). (DDB)

246. These lines are reversed in the source text in Taishō.

247. The first part of this citation about the heads and hands is found in many texts, such as the Satyasiddhi-śāstra [T 1646.32.315b14.], but I have not yet found the full line in one piece.

248. This phrase is cited secondarily in many places with the same introduction, “a sūtra says”, but I have not yet found it in a sūtra.

249. Found in T 1509.25.700c7–8, (Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra) which is not a sūtra.

250. This discussion on the differences in application of anti-reifying discourse to counter reified positions of non-Buddhists, two-vehicle, and bodhisattva practitioner is also contained, almost verbatim, in Wonhyo’s Simmun hwajaeng non. See HBJ 1.840a.

251. One fascicle, attributed to Nāgârjuna and translated by Kumārajīva. One of the three main treatises that formed the basis for the Sanlun school. The doctrine of emptiness is explained in twelve aspects. T 1568.30.159c-167c

252. This is not a direct quote, but is a summary of the point of a passage, not from the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra, but from the Mahāyāna-saṃgrāha, T 1593.31.118a21–29