俱舍論記 1.134

1.134

「聲有八種至差別成八」者，此下別解所聞名聲。差別有八：一有執受大種為因有情名可意聲；二有執受大種為因有情名不可意聲；三有執受大種為因非有情名可意聲；四有執受大種為因非有情名不可意聲。無執受大種為因聲亦有四種，准此應釋。故《婆沙》十三云「聲處有八種，謂執受大種為因聲、非執受大種因聲。此各有二，謂有情名聲、非有情名聲。此復各有可意、不可意別，故成八種。」問：無執受中，如何得有有情名聲？答：如《入阿毘達磨論》第一云「聲有二種，謂有執受及無執受，大種為因有差別故。隨自體者名有執受，是有覺受義；與此相違名無執受。前所生者名有執受大種為因，謂手、語等聲；後所生者名無執受大種為因；謂風、林、河等聲。此有情名、非有情名差別為四，謂前聲中語聲名有情名聲，餘聲名非有情名聲。後聲中化語聲名有情名聲，餘聲名非有情名聲。此復可意及不可意，差別成八。」彼論既說後無執受聲中化語聲是有情名聲，明知無執受中得有有情名聲。問：化語有名，為成就不？解云：成就。故此論第五卷云「又名身等，有情數攝，能說者成，非所顯義。」問：化語有名，為是業不？解云：是業。故《婆沙》一百二十二云「問：諸化語是業不？有作是說：彼是語業，由心發故。有餘師說：彼非語業但名語聲，以所化身無執受故。」《婆沙》雖無評文，且以前師為正，不言「有餘師」故。問：化語是業，為成就不？解云：成就。故《婆沙》一百三十二云「有成就欲界繫所造色亦色界繫所造色，謂生欲界得色界善心，若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。」以此准知，成就化語。若言《婆沙》據即質化故言成就，若離質化則不成就者，撿尋《婆沙》上下論文，但言成就化語。無有不成化語之文。若言化語通成、不成，《婆沙》應言：若即質，化語成就；若離質，化語不成就。彼論既無此說，故知定成化語。問：如簫笛等，亦是無執受大種因聲，同化語聲，為有名不？及是業不？復成就不？解云：無名。故此論云「有情名聲謂語表業」，此非語業故無有名。有歌曲等似名非真，如鏡中火似真火而非真火，亦非是業。故《婆沙》一百二十二云「問：簫笛等聲。是語業不？答：彼非語業，但是語聲，由風氣等所引發故（已上論文）。」既非有名亦非是業。故不成就。問：如化四境，非名非業，如何說成？解云：由心力能親發化故，可說成就。簫笛等聲即不如是，故不成就。又解：化語無有實名，論言化語是有情名聲者，似有情名，非實有情名，如鏡中火似真火，而非真火。既非實名，亦非成就。化語非業，《婆沙》解化語是業、非業。既無評家，且以後師為正。又此論〈業品〉亦同《婆沙》後師。故〈業品〉云「散依等流性，有受異大生。」解表大種同散無表，用執受大種造。化語既不用執受大種造，明知非業。化語雖非是業，而得名語，由心力能親發起故，可言成就。簫、笛等聲雖名為語，非親發起，故不成就。若作前解，釋後證言同散無表者，據非化語業。若據化語業，即用無執受大種為因。上來雖解化語真似兩說，於無執受皆具四聲。又解：由門異故成八種聲，謂有執受、無執受因聲，有情名聲、非有情名聲，各有可意、不可意，總成八種。問：執受、不執受因聲，與有情、非有情名聲，相對何別？解云：應作四句。有是執受因聲非有情名聲，謂手等聲。有是有情名聲非執受因聲，謂化語聲。有是執受因聲亦是有情名聲，謂語表業聲。有非執受因聲亦非有情名聲，謂風林等聲。問：執受不執受因聲與可意不可意聲，相對何別？解云：應作四句。有是執受因聲非可意聲，謂內發惡聲。有是可意聲非執受因聲，謂外發好聲。有是執受因聲亦是可意聲，謂內出好聲。有非執受因聲亦非可意聲，謂外發惡聲。問：有情非有情名聲，與可意不可意聲何別？解云：應作四句。有是有情名聲非可意聲，謂語出惡聲。有是可意聲非有情名聲，謂外出好聲而無有名。有是有情名聲亦是可意聲，謂語出好聲。有非有情名聲亦非可意聲，謂外出惡聲而無有名。若依《婆沙》十三，有一師更說：有有情數、非有情數大種因聲。故故彼論云「有作是說：執受大種因聲、非執受大種因聲，各有可意、不可意別。有情數大種因聲、非有情數大種因聲，亦各有可意、不可意別。故成八種。」《正理》八聲亦同此說。問：此論執受、不執受因聲，與《婆沙》有情數、非有情數因聲何別？解云：但是執受因聲定是有情數因聲；有是有情數因聲非是執受因聲，謂化語聲。但是非有情數因聲定是非執受因聲；有是非執受因聲而非是非有情數因聲，謂化語聲。問：此論有情名、非有情名聲，與《婆沙》有情數、非有情數因聲何別？解云：但是有情名聲定是有情數因聲；有是有情數因聲而非是有情名聲，謂手等聲。但是非有情數因聲定是非有情名聲；有是非有情名聲而非是非有情數因聲謂手等聲。問：此論可意、不可意聲，與《婆沙》有情數、非有情數因聲何別？

"Sound is of eight kinds [...] by their distinction they constitute eight": below this, what is heard, termed "sound", is explained specifically. There are eight distinctions: first, pleasant sound which has grasped great elements as its cause and is designated as sentient; second, unpleasant sound which has grasped great elements as its cause and is designated as sentient; third, pleasant sound which has grasped great elements as its cause and is designated as non-sentient; fourth, unpleasant sound which has grasped great elements as its cause and is designated as non-sentient. Sound caused by ungrasped great elements also has four kinds, which should be explained in a manner conforming to this. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 13, says: "The sound base is of eight kinds; that is, sound caused by grasped great elements, and sound caused by ungrasped great elements. Each of these has two: namely, sound designated as sentient, and sound designated as non-sentient. Each of these again has the distinction of pleasant and unpleasant; hence they constitute eight kinds." Question: Among ungrasped [elements], how can there be sound designated as sentient? Answer: As the Abhidharmāvatāra-śāstra, fascicle 1, says: "Sound is of two kinds: namely, [that caused by] grasped and ungrasped [great elements], because there is a difference in the great elements acting as cause. That which belongs to the individual bodily continuity is called grasped, meaning that which possesses feeling; what is contrary to this is called ungrasped. What is produced from the former is called [sound] caused by grasped great elements, namely sounds of the hands, speech, etc. What is produced from the latter is called [sound] caused by ungrasped great elements, namely sounds of wind, forests, rivers, etc. By the distinction of sentient designation and non-sentient designation these become four: namely, among the former sounds, vocal sound is called sound designated as sentient, while the remaining sounds are called sound designated as non-sentient; among the latter sounds, transformed vocal sound is called sound designated as sentient, while the remaining sounds are called sound designated as non-sentient. These further [divide into] pleasant and unpleasant, by their distinction constituting eight." Since that treatise states that among the latter sounds of ungrasped [elements], transformed vocal sound is sound designated as sentient, it clearly shows that among ungrasped [elements] there can indeed be sound designated as sentient. Question: Does transformed speech possess nominal designators (nāman), and is it possessed (prāpta)? Explanation: It is possessed. Therefore fascicle 5 of this treatise says: "Moreover, groups of nominal designators (nāmakāya) and the like are subsumed under sentient beings; they are possessed by the speaker, not by the designated meaning." Question: Does transformed speech possess nominal designators, and is it karma? Explanation: It is karma. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 122, says: "Question: Are transformed speeches karma? Some say: They are vocal karma, because they are originated from the mind. Other masters say: They are not vocal karma, but merely called vocal sound, because the transformed body is ungrasped." Although the Mahāvibhāṣā does not give an evaluative judgment, the former master is tentatively taken as correct, because it does not state "other masters". Question: If transformed speech is karma, is it possessed? Explanation: It is possessed. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 132, says: "There are cases of possessing secondary matter bound to the desire realm and also secondary matter bound to the form realm: that is, when born in the desire realm, one obtains a wholesome mind of the form realm, or when born in the form realm, one creates a transformation of the desire realm and utters desire-realm speech." Conforming to this, one knows that transformed speech is possessed. If it were said that the Mahāvibhāṣā speaks of possession based on transformation concurrent with the physical substance, but if it is separated from the physical substance it is not possessed: searching the text of the Mahāvibhāṣā throughout, it only says that transformed speech is possessed; there is no text stating that transformed speech is not possessed. If transformed speech applied both to possession and non-possession, the Mahāvibhāṣā ought to have said: if concurrent with the physical substance, transformed speech is possessed; if separated from the physical substance, transformed speech is not possessed. Since that treatise has no such statement, we know that transformed speech is definitely possessed. Question: Such things as flutes and pipes are also sound caused by ungrasped great elements, like transformed vocal sound: do they possess nominal designators? And are they karma? Furthermore, are they possessed? Explanation: They lack nominal designators. For this treatise says: "Sound designated as sentient refers to vocal communicative karma"; since these are not vocal karma, they lack nominal designators. Songs and the like resemble nominal designators but are not genuine, just as a fire in a mirror resembles a genuine fire but is not a genuine fire; neither are they karma. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 122, says: "Question: Are sounds of flutes, pipes, etc., vocal karma? Answer: They are not vocal karma, but merely vocal sound, because they are elicited by wind currents and the like (end of treatise text)." Since they neither possess nominal designators nor are karma, they are not possessed. Question: Such transformed four sense fields are neither nominal designators nor karma; how can they be said to be possessed? Explanation: Because by the power of the mind one can directly originate the transformation, they can be said to be possessed. Sounds of flutes and pipes are not like this, so they are not possessed. Another explanation: Transformed speech lacks real nominal designators; when the treatise says that transformed speech is sound designated as sentient, it resembles sentient designation, but is not a real sentient designation, just as a fire in a mirror resembles a genuine fire but is not a genuine fire. Since it is not a real nominal designator, it is also not possessed. Transformed speech is not karma: the Mahāvibhāṣā explains whether transformed speech is karma or not karma; since there is no evaluative master, the latter master is tentatively taken as correct. Moreover, the "Karma-nirdeśa" of this treatise also agrees with the latter master of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Thus the "Karma-nirdeśa" says: "The uncollected depends on the out-flowing nature; it is produced from grasped, distinct great elements." It explains that the great elements of communication are like uncollected non-communication, being produced using grasped great elements. Since transformed speech is not produced using grasped great elements, it is clearly known not to be karma. Although transformed speech is not karma, it still acquires the name "speech"; because by the power of the mind it can be directly originated, it can be said to be possessed. Sounds of flutes, pipes, etc., although named "speech", are not directly originated, so they are not possessed. If the former explanation is adopted, the latter evidentiary statement that it is like uncollected non-communication refers to non-transformed vocal karma. If it refers to transformed vocal karma, then it uses ungrasped great elements as cause. Although the above explains the two views of transformed speech as genuine and resembling, under ungrasped [elements] there are in both cases all four sounds. Another explanation: By distinction of gates, eight kinds of sound are formed: that is, sounds caused by grasped and ungrasped [elements], sounds designated as sentient and non-sentient; each has pleasant and unpleasant, making eight kinds in total. Question: Between sound caused by grasped/ungrasped [elements] and sound designated as sentient/non-sentient, what is the distinction when contrasted? Explanation: A fourfold tetralemma should be made: there is that which is sound caused by grasped [elements] but not sound designated as sentient, namely sounds of hands, etc.; there is that which is sound designated as sentient but not sound caused by grasped [elements], namely transformed vocal sound; there is that which is sound caused by grasped [elements] and also sound designated as sentient, namely vocal communicative karma sound; there is that which is neither sound caused by grasped [elements] nor sound designated as sentient, namely sounds of wind, forests, etc. Question: Between sound caused by grasped/ungrasped [elements] and pleasant/unpleasant sound, what is the distinction when contrasted? Explanation: A fourfold tetralemma should be made: there is that which is sound caused by grasped [elements] but not pleasant sound, namely internally originated bad sound; there is that which is pleasant sound but not sound caused by grasped [elements], namely externally originated good sound; there is that which is sound caused by grasped [elements] and also pleasant sound, namely internally emitted good sound; there is that which is neither sound caused by grasped [elements] nor pleasant sound, namely externally originated bad sound. Question: Between sound designated as sentient/non-sentient and pleasant/unpleasant sound, what is the distinction? Explanation: A fourfold tetralemma should be made: there is that which is sound designated as sentient but not pleasant sound, namely speech uttering bad sound; there is that which is pleasant sound but not sound designated as sentient, namely externally emitted good sound that lacks nominal designation; there is that which is sound designated as sentient and also pleasant sound, namely speech uttering good sound; there is that which is neither sound designated as sentient nor pleasant sound, namely externally emitted bad sound that lacks nominal designation. If according to the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 13, one master further says: there are sounds caused by great elements belonging to sentient beings and not belonging to sentient beings. Hence that treatise says: "Some say: sound caused by grasped great elements and sound caused by ungrasped great elements each have the distinction of pleasant and unpleasant; sound caused by great elements belonging to sentient beings and sound caused by great elements not belonging to sentient beings each also have the distinction of pleasant and unpleasant; hence they constitute eight kinds." The eight sounds in the Nyāyānusāra also agree with this explanation. Question: Between the sound caused by grasped/ungrasped [elements] in this treatise and the sound caused by [great elements] belonging/not belonging to sentient beings in the Mahāvibhāṣā, what is the distinction? Explanation: Whatever is sound caused by grasped [elements] is definitely sound caused by [great elements] belonging to sentient beings; there is that which is sound caused by [great elements] belonging to sentient beings but not sound caused by grasped [elements], namely transformed vocal sound. Whatever is sound caused by [great elements] not belonging to sentient beings is definitely sound caused by ungrasped [elements]; there is that which is sound caused by ungrasped [elements] and yet not sound caused by [great elements] not belonging to sentient beings, namely transformed vocal sound. Question: Between the sound designated as sentient/non-sentient in this treatise and the sound caused by [great elements] belonging/not belonging to sentient beings in the Mahāvibhāṣā, what is the distinction? Explanation: Whatever is sound designated as sentient is definitely sound caused by [great elements] belonging to sentient beings; there is that which is sound caused by [great elements] belonging to sentient beings and yet not sound designated as sentient, namely sounds of hands, etc. Whatever is sound caused by [great elements] not belonging to sentient beings is definitely sound designated as non-sentient; there is that which is sound designated as non-sentient and yet not sound caused by [great elements] not belonging to sentient beings, namely sounds of hands, etc. Question: Between pleasant/unpleasant sound in this treatise and sound caused by [great elements] belonging/not belonging to sentient beings in the Mahāvibhāṣā, what is the distinction?