The term kleśa in English is
often translated as “affliction” or “defilement”. These are
normally suitable, but a clear definition of the term is best
understood, as it ties in not just with discerning inner mental processes, but also the unfolding of karma and its effects.
Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English
Dictionary defines kleśa
as “pain, affliction,
distress, pain from disease, anguish”.
The
Mahāprājñāpāramitā Upadeśa
by Nāgārjuna defines it as follows:
The
term kleśa-s: in the
abbreviated explanation they are the three poisons. In the extended
explanation they are the ninety-eight latent afflictions [anuśaya]
of the three realms.1
The
three poisons here are craving (rāga),
anger (dveṣa) and
nescience (moha). These condition and direct the mind towards various actions.
An important related term is the
vāsanā-kleśa, which is subsequently defined in said text as follows.
The term vāsanā-kleśa-s:
residue of the kleśa-s,
which seem to arise from the kleśa-s
when bodily and verbal karma do not comply with wisdom. Not knowing
the mind of another and witnessing what arises with them, there is
produced an impure mind (?). This is not an actual kleśa.
It is due to long habituated kleśa-s
that karma such as this is brought about. It is like someone who has
long been fettered and is suddenly liberated. Although when they walk
there are no fetters, the habituation to them is still present.
The traces of afflictions or
vāsanā-kleśa affect
even noble (ārya)
beings such as arhats, which explains some of the otherwise
inexplicable behaviors of certain notable figures:
《大智度論》卷27〈1
序品〉：「如是諸餘賢聖雖能斷煩惱，不能斷習。如難陀婬欲習故，雖得阿羅漢道，於男女大眾中坐，眼先視女眾，而與言語說法。」(CBETA,
T25, no. 1509, p. 260, c9-12)
As
such although the other worthy and noble beings are able to sever
kleśa-s, they cannot
sever the vāsanā-s,
like Nanda who due to his habituated sexual desire would sit amongst
the great male and female assemblies with his eyes first looking at
the female assembly though he had attained arhatship, yet still he
would speak to them and teach the Dharma.
The
idea here is that Nanda was an arhat and thus was no longer subject
to the kleśa of
desire (kāma),
yet still displayed a subtle inclination towards females. This is
explained as merely the residual force of past afflictions.
Based on the general theory of the
Satyasiddhi Śāstra,
kleśa-s arise due to
the “grasping at signs” (nimitta-grāha),
which in turn leads to karma and subsequent saṃsāric existence.2
The term nimitta-grāha
is perhaps understood as reification,
where both internal mental and external physical phenomena are
cognized and subsequently affirmed as existent thus generating an object to which action can be directed. Consequently, the process of
saṃsāra can be halted by ending nimitta-grāha.
This is what the realization of the emptiness of self would entail
liberation.
This differs from the theory presented
by Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya.
For Vasubandhu the kleśa-s
exist based on three factors:
Kleśas [with complete causes] arise from non-abandoning of
anuśaya, from the presence of their object, and from
erroneous judgment.
For example, lust arises (1) when the anuśaya of lust is
non-abandoned -- not completely-known (aparijñāta) -- its
opposition not having arisen; (2) when the dharmas which provoke the
manifestation of lust, namely visible things, etc., are found in the
field of experience (abhāsagata=viṣayarupatā-āpanna) and
(3) when there is erroneous judgment.
The anuśaya is the cause; the dharmas are its object; and
incorrect judgment is its immediate preparation: three distinct
forces.
Vasubandhu here is asserting that
kleśa-s arise as a result of latent or “sleeping”
kleśa-s, otherwise called anuśaya. At an earlier
level of the causal production of one's reality the anuśaya
enable action which leads to rebirth (punarbhava):
We said that the
world, in all its variety, arises from action. Now it is by reason of
the anuśayas, or latent defilements, that actions accumulate;
in the absence of the anuśayas, actions are not capable of
producing a new existence. Consequently,
1a. The roots of
existence, that is, of rebirth or of action, are the anuśayas.4
The text initially defines six
anuśayas: attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, false views
and doubt (there are longer lists as well). Attachment is divided into
attachment to pleasure or sensual desire and attachment to existence. The latter is notable because the practitioner must forsake not just pleasures, but also the desire to exist itself.
The term anuśaya should be further
clarified. For the Sautrāntikas,
whose ideas Vasubandhu is employing here, the anuśaya
is the seed of the kleśa,
or a dormant kleśa.
Vasubandhu cites their theory as follows:
What is called anuśaya is the kleśa itself in a state
of sleep, whereas the paryavasthāna
is the kleśa in an awakened state. The sleeping kleśa
is the non-manifested kleśa, in the state of being a seed;
the awakened kleśa is the manifested kleśa, the kleśa
in action. And by "seed" one should understand a certain
capacity to produce the kleśa, a power belonging to the
person engendered by the previous kleśa.5
This is in contrast to the
Sarvāstivādins
where kleśa is the
equivalent of anuśaya.
In this context this differs from a vāsanā-kleśa
in that while an anuśaya
is potent and able to ripen into an active kleśa, the vāsanā-kleśa
is a trace of a formerly existent kleśa.
As similes we might think of anuśaya-s
as fertile seed in soil (the mind), kleśa-s as live plants and vāsanā-kleśa-s as burnt plants, which although destroyed still affect to some small degree the soil in which they exist (i.e., the traces of affliction within the mind).
The kleśa-s do not
directly cause karma, but they are a necessary condition and orient the
quality and direction an action will take. It is volition that
directly causes karma. The Buddha in the Aṅguttaranikāya
states,
"Oh monks, I say that action is volition; after having willed
it, one accomplishes action by means of the body, the voice and the
mind."6
That is to say action (karma) is
volition (cetanā) from which a process of activity is carried
out via body, speech and mind. Volition is oriented based on inner
experiences. The kleśa-s do not produce karma, only
facilitate it.
Vasubandhu above states that “it is by reason of the anuśayas,
or latent defilements, that actions accumulate”. Here in Sanskrit
upacayaṃ
gacchanti can mean "to
accumulate" or “to promote or advance the prosperity of, help,
assist”.
He further states that “in the absence of the anuśayas,
actions are not capable of producing a new existence”. In the
absence of latent and potent afflictions such as pride and attachment
there is no possibility for rebirth to occur.
As noted above, the
arhat may be subject to the traces of afflictions or vāsanā-kleśa-s,
but not any anuśaya-s. If they did possess any anuśaya-s,
then rebirth could occur, but an arhat is not subject to rebirth, so
we thus know an arhat is free of anuśaya-s. Their continued
existence prior to physical death is described as “nirvāṇa
with remainder” (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa), which means the
past karma which resulted in their final birth is still active until
physical death, whereupon they attain “nirvāṇa without remainder” (nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).
Vasubandhu
goes on to explain at length the process of abandoning the anuśaya-s.
There are two inclusive paths: “seeing” and meditation (bhāvanā).
"Meditation" here consists of repeated contemplation. Needless to say,
before this is possible the practitioner needs to cultivate good
qualities, mindfulness, mental stamina gained through sustained
concentration on the breath and contemplation of disgust for saṃsāra.
Disgust is what enables the first dhyāna,
which means the practitioner must become thoroughly dissatisfied with
all aspects of the kāma-dhātu or
desire realm (that would includes sensual pleasures like sex, food
and music) as a prerequisite for liberation (that entails celibacy as a requirement for even the first result of stream-entry). The whole process ends with all afflictions destroyed and
the attainment of arhatship.
Taking into consideration everything
above, the key terms from Vasubandhu can be summarized as follows:
anuśaya – The “sleeping” or inactive mental affliction such as attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, false views and doubt.kleśa – The “awake” or active mental affliction directing karma.vāsanā-kleśa – The trace or habituation imprinted in the mind that still directs a small degree of action.
Finally, alternative theories on
liberation, such as those from Mahāyāna advocates and some others, are generally
predicated on the realization of the emptiness of self and/or phenomena
(which consequently halts and eliminates afflictions) rather than
primarily eliminating afflictions as Vasubandhu's model requires.
Vasubandhu includes erroneous views of self as only one type of view
that must be remedied for the process of liberation to proceed. He
also has a different perspective on the qualities of dharma-s
or phenomena.
In the long-term development of
Buddhism(s), the alternative theories of liberation via the realization
of emptiness of self and/or phenomena meant that this could be seen as
more important and moreover the optimal way of attaining liberation
rather than living a life of renunciation and self-restraint. This
presumably enabled the lay movement of married clergy in India to
justify its existence to some degree in the face of criticism from
figures not unlike Vasubandhu who would have insisted upon celibacy
and restraint as prerequisites for liberation. In other words, it is grasping and attachment that need to be remedied as the primary task, not the successive elimination of afflictions.
Nevertheless, as Nāgārjuna notes in his Letter to a Friend, wisdom is only attained via the mental stamina gained through dhyāna. While not expressly stated, the attainment of even the first dhyāna generally requires renunciation of sensual desires. It logically follows that realization of emptiness (wisdom) requires suitable mental stamina that is only gained through determined renunciation and active abandonment of sensual desires and pleasures.
All
things considered there were many opinions on the genesis of
afflictions and their remedy. Vasubandhu cites some alternative
contemporary opinions, all of which are worth considering. The discussions on this subject are rich and
perhaps aids the Buddhist practitioner to discern for themselves how
and why these mental events arise and affect our decision making
processes and actions. I think it best to take these models for
liberation as general guidelines rather than absolute sequences that
must be followed in the specified order.
------
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
2《中觀論疏》卷4〈4
五陰品〉：「依成實人答者。由取相煩惱感得生死中一切無常法也。」(CBETA,
T42, no. 1824, p. 69, a17-19)
3 Abhidharma-kośa-bhāṣya.
Trans. Louis De La Vallee Poussin. English trans. Leo M. Pruden.
Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991. See v. 3, p. 828.
4 Ibid.,
767-768.
5 Ibid.,
770.
6 Cetanāhaṁ
bhikkhave kammaṁ vadāmi, cetayitvā kammaṁ karoti
kāyena vācāya manasā. Translation from Karmasiddhi
Prakarana The Treatise on Action, 15.
