俱舍論記 1.152

1.152

「等言顯示不亂有心」者，亂心等，等取不亂心。無心等，等取有心。隨其所應無表，於此四位中行。問：何故頌文別標亂心、無心，不言不亂、有心？解云：無表於亂心、無心位中行，顯彼希奇。於不亂、有心位行，非顯希奇。故標亂心、無心，不言不亂、有心。又解：若言不亂、有心，還應有難。必有一難，此不須通。《正理》破云「又謂等言通無心者，此言無用，前已攝故。亂心等言，已攝一切餘有心位。第二等言復何所攝？經主應思。或謂後等攝不亂心，前無用者。此不應然，無容攝故。何容後等攝不亂心？遮言理於相似處起。乘無起等，理不及餘，故非全攝。或可亂心，言成無用（解云：或二位三位足攝心盡，何須四耶？若言亂心等，等取不亂心及無心，三位即攝心皆盡，何須有心？若言無心等，等取不亂心，此即非相似處起，不可等彼。若言無心等，等有心，二位亦攝心盡，即亂心無用）。」安惠菩薩《俱舍釋》中救云「眾賢論師不得世親阿闍梨意，輒彈等字。亂心、不亂心，此是散位一對。無心、有心，此是定位一對。亂心等，等取不亂心，散自相似。無心等，等取有心，定自相似。故此等言通於兩處，顯頌巧善。」

Regarding "The word 'and so forth' shows undistracted and with-mind": "Distracted mind and so forth" takes by "and so forth" undistracted mind. "Mindless and so forth" takes by "and so forth" with-mind. Non-informative [matter] operates in these four states according to what is appropriate. Question: Why does the verse specifically specify distracted mind and mindless, but not say undistracted and with-mind? The explanation says: Non-informative [matter] operating in states of distracted mind and mindless reveals its wonder. Operating in states of undistracted and with-mind does not reveal wonder. Therefore, it specifies distracted mind and mindless, and does not say undistracted and with-mind. Another explanation: If it said undistracted and with-mind, there would still be an objection. A certain objection would inevitably arise, so this need not be resolved. The *Nyāyānusāra* refutes this, saying: "Furthermore, to claim that the word 'and so forth' extends to mindless is useless, because it has already been subsumed previously. The words 'distracted mind and so forth' have already subsumed all other states with-mind. What further could the second 'and so forth' subsume? The master of the treatise should consider this. Or if one claims that the latter 'and so forth' subsumes undistracted mind and the former is useless, this also cannot be so, for it cannot possibly subsume it. How could the latter 'and so forth' subsume undistracted mind? A restrictive word logically arises in similar contexts. Arising along with 'without [mind]' to form 'and so forth', logically it cannot reach what is dissimilar; therefore it does not completely subsume them. Or perhaps the words 'distracted mind' become useless." (The explanation says: Either two states or three states are sufficient to completely subsume the mind; why are four needed? If one says 'distracted mind and so forth' takes by 'and so forth' undistracted mind and mindless, three states already subsume the mind completely; why would 'with-mind' be needed? If one says 'mindless and so forth' takes by 'and so forth' undistracted mind, this is not arising in a similar context and cannot include that by 'and so forth'. If one says 'mindless and so forth' takes by 'and so forth' with-mind, two states also completely subsume the mind, and then 'distracted mind' is useless.) Bodhisattva Sthiramati in his commentary on the *Kośa* defends it, saying: "Master Saṃghabhadra did not comprehend Ācārya Vasubandhu's intention and rashly criticized the word 'and so forth'. Distracted mind and undistracted mind form a pair for the distracted state. Mindless and with-mind form a pair for the meditative absorption state. 'Distracted mind and so forth' takes by 'and so forth' undistracted mind, the distracted being mutually similar. 'Mindless and so forth' takes by 'and so forth' with-mind, meditative absorption being mutually similar. Therefore this word 'and so forth' extends to both places, demonstrating the skillfulness of the verse."