Web search is unavailable, but the provided classical materials from the *Abhidharmakośa* (T1558) are rich and internally consistent. I'll write the interpretation directly from these sources.
有漏行 (sāsrava-saṃskāra): Conditioned Existence Under the Leak of Affliction
这个概念在说什么
One sentence: 有漏行 is the totality of conditioned phenomena (有为法, saṃskṛta-dharma) that are "in correspondence with the leaks" (与漏相应)—that is, permeated, colored, and driven by affliction (烦恼, kleśa). In the *Abhidharmakośa* (《阿毘達磨俱舍論》, T1558), Vasubandhu states flatly: the five aggregates-of-clinging (五取蕴, pañca-upādāna-skandha) *are* the defiled conditioned; and the defiled conditioned *are* the Truth of Suffering (苦谛, duḥkha-satya). Nothing leaks outside this equation.
To understand 有漏行 you must hold three layers simultaneously:
Layer 1 — What "漏" (āsrava, leak/effluent) means. The Kośa treats 漏 as an umbrella term and then sorts it into three:
- 欲漏 (kāmāsrava): the forty-one afflictive factors bound to the Desire Realm (kāma-dhātu)—thirty-one root afflictions plus ten "envelopers" (纏, paryavasthāna)—excluding ignorance. - 有漏 (bhavāsrava): the fifty-two afflictive factors of the Form and Formless Realms combined (twenty-six each, minus ignorance), unified because both share three traits: ethically indeterminate (无记性), turning on an inner gate (於內門轉), and born from meditative absorption (依定地生). - 无明漏 (avidyāsrava): the fifteen forms of ignorance across all three realms, set apart because "ignorance is the root of all becoming" (无明諸有本).
The verse runs: "欲煩惱并纏，除癡名欲漏；有漏上二界，唯煩惱除癡；……無明諸有本，故別為一漏。" Ignorance is carved out and given its own category because it is the trunk from which every other affliction branches.
Layer 2 — What "行" (saṃskāra, conditioned formation) means here. "行" is not merely "action" in the colloquial sense. It is everything that arises through causes and conditions (有為, saṃskṛta): the five aggregates in their entirety—form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness—*insofar as* they are染污 (defiled), i.e. operating in tandem with 漏. The Kośa explicitly notes: "或有唯蘊而非取蘊，謂無漏行"—there exist aggregates that are *not* aggregates-of-clinging, namely the undefiled formations (无漏行) of the noble path. The dividing line is not *what* you experience but *whether affliction rides along with it*.
Layer 3 — Why this equals the Truth of Suffering. Vasubandhu grounds the equation through the three modes of suffering (三苦性):
| Type of suffering | What it applies to | Logic | |---|---|---| | 苦苦 (duḥkha-duḥkhatā, pain of pain) | Non-pleasant defiled formations | Already painful in themselves | | 壞苦 (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā, pain of change) | Pleasant defiled formations | Painful because they must collapse | | 行苦 (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā, pain of conditioning) | Everything else defiled | Painful because they are driven, not free |
"諸有漏行如其所應，與此三種苦性合故，皆是苦諦亦無有失。" Every single defiled formation falls under one of these three. There is no remainder, no escape hatch inside the defiled. This is why the First Noble Truth is not pessimism but *diagnosis*: it says the entire domain of 有漏行 is structurally unsatisfactory, not that every moment feels bad.
The synonym web. The Kośa gives 有漏法 a constellation of alternate names, each spotlighting a different facet of the same reality:
- 取蕴 (upādāna-skandha): the aggregates *as clung-to*, explained through three metaphors—(1) born from clinging, like a fire of grass and chaff (草穅火); (2) belonging to clinging, like a minister to a king (帝王臣); (3) generating clinging, like a fruit-bearing tree (花果樹). - 有諍 (saraṇa, "with strife"): affliction stirs the good, harms self and other, and grows through contention. - 苦 (duḥkha): "offensive to the mind of the noble" (違聖心故). - 集 (samudaya): "capable of recruiting suffering" (能招苦故). - 世間 (loka, "the world"): destructible, and something that has an antidote. - 見處 (dṛṣṭi-sthāna, "ground of views"): where views lodge and dormant affliction thickens. - 三有 (tri-bhava, "the three becomings"): having cause, having basis, contained within the three realms of existence.
And the Kośa distinguishes four functional names for affliction itself—漏, 瀑流 (ogha, flood), 軛 (yoga, yoke), 取 (upādāna, clinging):
"由彼相續於六瘡門泄過無窮故名為漏，極漂善品故名瀑流，和合有情故名為軛，能為依執故名為取。"
- 漏: the continuous seeping-out of faults through the six sense-doors (六瘡門), like a chronic wound that never stops weeping. - 瀑流: when the current is so strong you can only go with it—good qualities are swept away. - 軛: yoking beings to suffering—not a violent torrent but a quiet harness. - 取: the grasping that becomes the basis for further attachment.
The Kośa's boat simile crystallizes the asymmetry: "譬如挽船逆流而上，設大功用行尚為難。若放此船順流而去，雖捨功用行不為難。起善染心應知亦爾。" Pulling a boat upstream (cultivating goodness) is enormously effortful; releasing it downstream (falling into affliction) requires no effort at all. That is the gravitational field of 有漏行.
Where this sits on the path. In the four-truth schema, 有漏行 is the *object* of the First Truth (苦谛, to be fully known, 遍知) and simultaneously the *fuel* of the Second Truth (集谛, to be abandoned, 斷). The Kośa notes that 苦 and 集 "differ in name by causal position, but are not different in substance" (因果性分名雖有殊而物非有異). The same defiled formation is "suffering" when you look at it as effect, and "origin" when you look at it as cause. The path out is the Third Truth (滅谛, cessation) realized through the Fourth (道谛, the path)—and the formations that constitute the noble path itself are 无漏行, *not* 有漏行, even though they too are conditioned.
A well-known canonical framing appears in the *Heart Sūtra* (《般若波羅蜜多心經》): "照見五蘊皆空，度一切苦厄。" Avalokiteśvara's "seeing through" the five aggregates to their emptiness is precisely the insight that dissolves the 有漏 character of experience—not annihilating the aggregates, but severing the 漏 that made them 取蕴. The *Saṃyukta Āgama* (《雜阿含經》) likewise repeatedly teaches: "觀色如聚沫，受如水上泡，想如春時焰，諸行如芭蕉，諸識法如幻"—each aggregate carries its own simile (form like a ball of foam, feeling like a water-bubble, perception like a mirage, formations like a banana trunk, consciousness like an illusion), and the point of the contemplation is to see that in each, "無實、無有堅固"—there is nothing solid to cling to, and therefore nothing that *needs* to leak.
生活里的走查
Let's walk 有漏行 through an ordinary contemporary day, mapping each element to its classical definition precisely.
6:45 a.m. — The alarm. Your phone buzzes. Before you are fully awake, a micro-contraction in the chest: dread of the commute, resentment at lost sleep. Classical mapping: this is 受 (vedanā, feeling-tone) arising as non-pleasant (非可意). Because it is accompanied by a faint aversion (瞋, dveṣa)—"I don't want this"—it is 有漏. It falls under 苦苦: it simply hurts, and the hurt is the point. Notice: the feeling-tone itself is not the problem. An arahant's body also registers unpleasant sensation. What makes it 有漏 is the affliction *riding along*—the "I shouldn't have to endure this" that the Kośa would classify under 欲漏.
7:30 a.m. — The commute, phone in hand. You open a social-media feed. The algorithm serves a cascade of images: a colleague's vacation, a friend's renovation, a stranger's body. Each image triggers 想 (saṃjñā, perception-as-recognition): you *take the mark* (取相) of "their life" versus "my life." Classical mapping: 想蕴 here is not "having a thought" but the pre-verbal act of *identifying and labeling*—this is X, that is Y, this is better, that is worse. The Kośa's 見處 (ground of views) activates: a view ("I am falling behind") lodges in the perception, and dormant affliction (隨眠, anuśaya) thickens around it. You are now in 瀑流 territory—the current is strong, you scroll without deciding to scroll, and pulling the boat upstream (closing the phone, settling into the seat) feels disproportionately effortful. The boat simile is not poetic decoration; it is a phenomenological description of what scrolling *feels like from the inside*.
Common mis-mapping to catch here: Many people would say "my *thoughts* made me anxious." In Kośa terms, the anxiety is 受 (feeling-tone), the "I am falling behind" is 見 (view, a subset of 行蕴's volitional formations), and the *identification* of the image as "their better life" is 想. Three different aggregates, three different intervention points. Collapsing them into "my thoughts" loses the diagnostic precision that makes the path actionable.
10:00 a.m. — The meeting. Your manager criticizes a deliverable in front of the team. Heat rises in the face (色, rūpa—the body is part of form, and so is the sound of her voice, and so is the fluorescent light above; 色蕴 is *all* matter derived from the four great elements, 四大所造色, not merely "my body"). The volitional formation (行, saṃskāra in the narrow aggregate sense) that follows is 思 (cetanā, volition): the impulse to defend, to counter-attack, to withdraw. This is 有漏行 at its most visible—volition *in correspondence with* pride (慢, māna) and anger (瞋). It is also 有諍 in the Kośa's sense: it "stirs the good" (觸動善品)—your capacity to listen clearly, to learn, is knocked offline—and it "harms self and other" (損害自他) because the retort you swallow will calcify into resentment, and the one you don't swallow will wound a colleague.
12:30 p.m. — Lunch, pleasant. A good meal, good company, laughter. This is 可意有漏行—pleasant defiled formation. And here is the subtlest cut: the Kośa assigns this to 壞苦, the suffering of change. Not because the lunch is bad, but because it is *conditioned*—it will end, the afternoon will flatten it, and the very pleasure carries the seed of its own loss. You don't need to white-knuckle the enjoyment. The instruction is to *know* it as 壞苦: to enjoy without the unconscious contract that it should last, should repeat, should define you. The "leak" here is not gross craving but the fine-grained 取 (upādāna) that whispers "more of this, again, always."
9:00 p.m. — The child won't sleep. You are exhausted. Your toddler screams. The 受 is non-pleasant; the 行 is the volition to *make it stop now*; the 漏 is the specific flavor of 欲漏—desire-realm affliction in its rawest form: irritation at a sensory environment you cannot control. But watch what happens if you pause and *name* the aggregate: "This is feeling-tone. This is volition. This is the body's fatigue (色). This is the perception of 'a child who is doing this to me' (想)." The naming doesn't suppress the experience; it introduces a sliver of space between the formation and the affliction. In Kośa language, you are temporarily loosening the 軛 (yoke)—the quiet harness that yokes you to this particular suffering—not yet cutting it, but making it visible *as* a harness rather than as reality.
11:30 p.m. — Lying awake. The mind replays the day. This is 行苦 in its purest form: nothing is overtly painful, nothing is pleasant, but the entire sequence is *driven*—conditioned formations cascading because conditions cascade, with no one at the wheel. The Kośa's "除此所餘有漏行法與行苦合故名苦" applies here: the neutral, humming, can't-switch-off quality of a conditioned mind *is* the suffering. It is not that you are suffering badly; it is that you are not free. The boat is drifting downstream with no hand on the tiller, and the drifting itself—however gentle—is 有漏行.
The walk-through's punchline: In a single day, every aggregate appeared, every type of 苦 appeared, and every one of the four functional names (漏, 瀑流, 軛, 取) found its moment. 有漏行 is not a rare pathological state. It is the default texture of unawakened experience. That is exactly why the First Truth is called "noble" (聖)—not because suffering is holy, but because *seeing it clearly* is the first act of the noble path.
当代人为什么需要它
1. It names the problem at the right altitude. Contemporary wellness culture oscillates between two errors: (a) "I just need to optimize my routine and the suffering will stop" (treating 有漏行 as a logistics problem), and (b) "life is suffering, so nothing matters" (misreading the First Truth as nihilism). The Kośa's framing refuses both. It says: the *entire domain* of conditioned experience, so long as it runs in tandem with affliction, is structurally unsatisfactory—and *that is precisely why* there is something to do. The diagnosis is total, but it is a diagnosis, not a verdict. 无漏行 exists. The path exists. The same mind that leaks can be trained to stop leaking.
2. It dissolves the "I'm broken" narrative. When a person says "I am anxious," they identify with the formation. The Kośa's analytic grid says: there is a feeling-tone (受), there is a volitional impulse (行), there is a perception that labels the situation as threatening (想), there is bodily activation (色), there is awareness of all this (識)—and *the leak* (漏) is a separable contaminant riding on top, not the essence of the person. This is not positive thinking. It is a structural claim: 有漏行 is defiled *because of* 漏, not because the aggregates themselves are evil. Remove the 漏, and the same five aggregates become the field of 无漏行—the liberated person still sees, feels, perceives, intends, and knows.
3. It explains the asymmetry of moral effort. The boat simile—upstream is hard, downstream is easy—is something every person knows experientially but rarely has a framework for. Why is it so much easier to scroll for two hours than to sit quietly for ten? Why does one harsh email undo a week of equanimity practice? The Kośa says: this is not a personal failing; it is the physics of 有漏行. Affliction has momentum (相續泄過無窮); goodness requires continuous effort (設大功用行尚為難). Knowing this doesn't excuse passivity, but it removes the toxic shame of "why can't I just be good?" and replaces it with a realistic engineering problem: how do I build conditions that make the upstream pull slightly less costly?
4. It offers a lens on algorithmic life. Recommendation engines are, in a precise structural sense, 瀑流 machines: they amplify the downstream current, making the "release the boat" option the path of least resistance. The Kośa's four-name distinction is useful here. The algorithm is not primarily 取 (you are not always grasping); it is 漏 (a continuous seep of micro-stimuli through the six sense-doors) and 軛 (a quiet yoking of your attention to a platform's revenue model). Naming it accurately matters because the antidote differs: for 瀑流 you need structural barriers (app limits, grayscale mode); for 軛 you need awareness of the harness (noticing the yoke *as* a yoke); for 取 you need insight into the object of clinging (what am I actually trying to get from this?).
*A caveat on the neuroscience analogy:* One might be tempted to say "有漏行 is just the default-mode network" or "漏 is dopamine dysregulation." These are interesting resonances, not equivalences. The DMN is a descriptive model of brain activity; 有漏行 is a soteriological diagnosis embedded in a path that claims cessation (滅) is possible. Neuroscience has not demonstrated that any brain state corresponds to 无漏行, nor could it, since 无漏行 is defined partly by the *absence* of a contaminant that neuroscience does not operationalize. Use the analogy to build intuition; do not use it to flatten the claim.
5. It locates suffering inside the Four Truths, not outside them. The most important thing 有漏行 does for a practitioner is *place* their experience on the map. Your Tuesday afternoon frustration is not a random misfortune; it is 苦谛, the first thing to be fully known (遍知). The craving that produced it is 集谛, the thing to be abandoned (斷). The possibility of its cessation is 滅谛, the thing to be realized (證). The method is 道谛, the thing to be cultivated (修). Without this map, suffering is just weather that happens to you. With it, suffering is the *raw material* of the path. The Kośa's dry scholastic precision is, in the end, an act of compassion: it refuses to let you be confused about where you stand.
常见误读与澄清
Misreading 1: "有漏行 means all experience is bad." No. The Kośa explicitly sorts 有漏行 into pleasant (可意), unpleasant (非可意), and neutral (其餘). Pleasant 有漏行 is still 有漏—not because pleasure is evil, but because it is 壞苦: conditioned, impermanent, and a site where 取 (clinging) can and does arise. The claim is not "pleasure is pain" but "pleasure-within-the-leaking-system cannot deliver what it promises." An arahant can enjoy a meal; the difference is that the enjoyment is not 有漏, because no 漏 rides along.
Misreading 2: "有漏行 = the five aggregates, full stop." No. The Kośa is explicit: "或有唯蘊而非取蘊，謂無漏行。" The five aggregates *can* operate without 漏. What makes them 取蕴 (and therefore 有漏行) is the presence of affliction. The equation is: 有漏行 = 五取蕴, not 有漏行 = 五蕴. This distinction is the entire difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa *within* embodied experience.
Misreading 3: "漏 is just desire." Desire-realm affliction (欲漏) is only one of three leaks. 有漏 (the leak of form/formless existence) includes subtle attachments to meditative states and refined existence—things that feel nothing like "desire" in the colloquial sense. And 无明漏 (the leak of ignorance) is the deepest: not a craving *for* something, but a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of what is. Reducing 漏 to "wanting stuff" misses the two subtler and more tenacious layers.
Misreading 4: "If everything conditioned is suffering, why act?" This confuses 行苦 with 苦苦. 行苦 does not mean "it hurts." It means "it is not free"—it is driven by conditions, not by autonomous choice. The response to 行苦 is not paralysis but *path*: the cultivation of 无漏行 (the noble eightfold path, the thirty-seven aids to awakening) which are themselves conditioned (有為) yet not defiled (無漏). The Kośa's system is not a counsel of despair; it is a specification of the problem so precise that the solution can be engineered.
Misreading 5: "有漏行 is a moral judgment on the person." The Kośa's language is structural, not personal. 有漏行 is a category of *dharmas* (phenomena), not a verdict on a self. There is no "you" who is 有漏; there are formations that arise in correspondence with 漏. The entire point of the aggregate analysis is to decompose the apparent person into impersonal processes so that the problem can be addressed without the added affliction of shame or self-hatred—which would itself be more 有漏行.
Misreading 6: "The four names—漏, 瀑流, 軛, 取—are four different things." The Kośa says they are one in substance (體同) and differ only in function (用異). The same affliction, viewed as continuous seeping, is 漏; viewed as overwhelming force, is 瀑流; viewed as quiet binding, is 軛; viewed as the basis for grasping, is 取. This is not a taxonomy of four entities but a four-lens description of one reality, and the practical payoff is that each lens suggests a different intervention: stop the seep (guard the sense-doors), resist the current (effort, 精進), notice the yoke (mindfulness, 念), release the grasp (insight, 慧).
Misreading 7: "This is just a Sarvāstivāda technicality; Mahāyāna moved past it." The *Heart Sūtra*'s "照見五蘊皆空" does not contradict the Kośa's analysis; it radicalizes it. The Kośa says: these aggregates are 有漏 because affliction rides them; remove the affliction and they become 无漏. Prajñāpāramitā says: look deeper—the aggregates themselves are empty of own-nature (自性空), so there was never a solid thing for affliction to ride. Both agree on the target (the cessation of 有漏行); they differ in the depth of the cut. And the *Saṃyukta Āgama*'s five-aggregate similes (foam, bubble, mirage, banana trunk, illusion) predate both schools, showing that the analytic-contemplative approach to 有漏行 is not a sectarian invention but a shared inheritance.
A closing word. The Kośa's treatment of 有漏行 is dense, numbered, and almost legalistic. That is not a flaw. When you are inside the 瀑流—inside the scroll, inside the rage, inside the 3 a.m. replay—what you need is not poetry. You need a grid. You need to be able to say: *this* is feeling-tone, *this* is the volition, *this* is the leak, *this* is the yoke, and *this*—this particular formation, right here—is 行苦, and it does not have to be the whole world. The precision is the kindness. The map is the first gift the Buddha gave after awakening, and 有漏行 is the territory it names.