[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 1.45 # 俱舍論記 1.45 俱舍論記 1.45 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.45) 「即能得此淨慧對法諸慧諸論」，慧謂得此淨慧對法有漏諸慧。修慧謂𤏙等四善根，思慧謂總別念住，聞慧謂五停心觀，生得慧謂能受持三藏教法。但依一相明四種慧，漸入觀位前後次第未是盡理。若據盡理，共相別相及五停位，皆通修慧、思慧、聞慧。下文當辨。有漏四慧，依漸次第應順次說四，今望聖道親疎近遠故逆說四。有古德說：聞慧緣名亦能受持讀誦者。此解不然，當《毘婆沙》不正義故。《婆沙》四十二云「評曰：應作是說。若於三藏、十二分教，受持讀誦、究竟流布，是生得慧。問：何故不許聞慧受持讀誦？解云：若正聞者唯生得慧，由聞所成名聞慧故。有漏四慧自性皆慧，若辨隨行皆通五蘊。思聞生得皆能發業，同一性故，性相隨順亦名隨行，故通色蘊。」問：如何得知聞、思二慧能發業耶？解云：《正理》四十二曰「諸律儀果，有從加行善所生、有從生得善心所生。若從加行善心生，律儀先捨，後斷善根。」又《婆沙》云「問：相異熟業以何為自性？為身業、為語業、為意業耶？答：三業為自性。」又《婆沙》曰「問：相異熟業，為聞所成、思所成、修所成耶？答：唯思所成，非聞、非修。所以者何？此業勝故非聞所成，欲界繫故非修所成。有說：此業通聞、思所成，但非修所成。」以此文證，故知聞、思能發身、語。問：若言聞、思能發身、語，既能發語，即能受持三藏教法，何故但言生得慧耶？解云：聞、思能發勝身、語業，彼業非勝，故唯生得。然古德說：加行善心不能發身、語業，引《婆沙》十七證云「問：色界善心一切皆有隨轉戒不？答：非一切有。謂初靜慮有六善心，無隨轉戒。一善眼識、二善耳識、三善身識、四死時善心、五起表善心、六聞所成慧相應善心。」古德意言：《婆沙》既聞慧外別說發表心，故知聞慧不能發業。難云：命終是生得，別說生得能發業，何妨聞慧外別說聞慧能發業？若言命終心劣不能發業，所以別說生得發業心。何妨聞慧不發業者，說聞慧心能發業者亦發業心攝？故非定證。況有明文，以此故知古德說非理。又解：有漏四慧相應、俱有，是俱有因者方名隨行。論謂展轉傳生無漏慧者，論望聖道最疎遠故，在慧後說。此諸慧論雖望聖道，前加行位中遠近不同，皆是聖道勝資糧故，亦得名為阿毘達磨。言諸論者，謂六足、《發智》，但言本論可以收末。或可諸論亦攝末論。言六足者，舍利子造《集異門足論》，一萬二千頌，略本八千頌（舍利，此云百舌鳥也。子是唐言）。大目乾連造《法蘊足論》，六千頌（目乾連，此云採菽氏。大是唐言。故《法蘊足論》云大採菽氏）。大迦多衍那造《施設足論》，一萬八千頌（迦多，此云剪剃。衍，此云種。那，是男聲。婆羅門中一姓也）。已上三論，佛在世時造。佛涅槃後一百年中，提婆設摩造《識身足論》，七千頌（此云天寂）。至三百年初，筏蘇密多羅造《品類足論》，六千頌（即是舊《眾事分阿毘曇》也）；又造《界身足論》，廣本六千頌，略本七百頌（筏蘇密多羅，此云世友。非婆沙會世友，同名異體）。至三百年末，迦多衍尼子造《發智論》，二萬五千頌。後代誦者廣略不同，一本一萬八千頌、一本一萬六千頌。此本即是和上所翻。前之六論義門稍少，《發智》一論法門最廣，故後代論師說六為足、《發智》為身。此上七論，是說一切有部根本論也。和上唯《施設足論》未翻，餘之六論皆悉翻訖。 > Regarding '\[the treatises and\] all forms of wisdom that enable one to attain this pure wisdom \[called\] abhidharma': 'wisdom' refers to all sāsrava wisdoms that enable one to attain this pure wisdom abhidharma. Wisdom based on cultivation refers to the four roots of goodness such as 'warmth' (uṣmagata); wisdom based on reflection refers to the general and specific applications of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna); wisdom based on hearing refers to the contemplations of the fivefold stilling of the mind; innate wisdom refers to that which is capable of accepting and upholding the teachings of the Tripiṭaka. This merely explains the four kinds of wisdom according to one single perspective; the sequence of gradually entering the stages of contemplation is not yet the definitive truth. If one takes the definitive truth as the basis, both the common characteristics and individual characteristics, as well as the fivefold stilling of the mind, all pertain to wisdom based on cultivation, wisdom based on reflection, and wisdom based on hearing. This will be distinguished below. In terms of gradual sequence, the four sāsrava wisdoms should be stated in progressive order; here they are stated in reverse order from the perspective of how close or remote they are relative to the noble path. An ancient master stated: 'Wisdom based on hearing, which takes names as its object, can also accept, uphold, read, and recite.' This interpretation is incorrect, for it contradicts the definitive doctrine of the Vibhāṣā. Chapter forty-two of the Vibhāṣā states: 'Evaluation: It should be stated as follows: Accepting, upholding, reading, reciting, and fully disseminating the Tripiṭaka and the twelvefold scriptures is innate wisdom.' Question: Why is it not allowed that wisdom based on hearing accepts, upholds, reads, and recites? Explanation: If it is proper hearing, it is solely innate wisdom, for that which is accomplished through hearing is called wisdom based on hearing. The intrinsic nature of the four sāsrava wisdoms is all wisdom; if one differentiates their concomitant factors (anuparivartin), they all pertain to the five skandhas. Reflection, hearing, and innate \[wisdom\] are all capable of initiating action (karman); because they share the same single nature, and their natures and characteristics are mutually concordant, they are also called concomitant, and therefore they include the rūpa-skandha. Question: How is it known that the two wisdoms, hearing and reflection, are capable of initiating action? Explanation: Nyāyānusāra, chapter forty-two, states: 'The fruits of the disciplines (saṃvara) are sometimes born from good \[minds\] of preparatory application (prayogika), and sometimes born from good minds that are innately acquired. If born from a good mind of preparatory application, the discipline is abandoned first, and later the roots of goodness are cut off.' Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā states: 'Question: What is the intrinsic nature of the karma that results in the ripening of the major marks \[of a Buddha\]? Is it bodily action, verbal action, or mental action? Answer: The three actions are its intrinsic nature.' The Vibhāṣā further states: 'Question: Is the karma resulting in the ripening of the major marks accomplished through hearing, accomplished through reflection, or accomplished through cultivation? Answer: It is accomplished solely through reflection, not through hearing and not through cultivation. Why is this? Because this karma is superior, it is not accomplished through hearing; because it is bound to the desire realm, it is not accomplished through cultivation. Some say: this karma pertains to both that accomplished through hearing and that accomplished through reflection, but it is not accomplished through cultivation.' Based on the evidence of these passages, we therefore know that hearing and reflection can initiate bodily and verbal \[actions\]. Question: If one says that hearing and reflection can initiate bodily and verbal actions, since they can initiate verbal \[actions\], they should then be able to accept and uphold the teachings of the Tripiṭaka; why then is only innate wisdom mentioned? Explanation: Hearing and reflection can initiate superior bodily and verbal karma; that karma \[of reciting the canon\] is not superior, and hence it is solely innate. However, an ancient master said that a good mind of preparatory application cannot initiate bodily and verbal karma, citing chapter seventeen of the Vibhāṣā as proof: 'Question: Do all good minds in the form realm possess concordant discipline (anuparivarti-śīla)? Answer: Not all possess it. In the first dhyāna, there are six good minds that lack concordant discipline: first, good eye-consciousness; second, good ear-consciousness; third, good body-consciousness; fourth, the good mind at the time of death; fifth, the good mind that initiates manifestation (vijñapti); sixth, the good mind associated with wisdom accomplished through hearing.' The ancient master meant: since the Vibhāṣā mentions the mind that initiates manifestation separately from wisdom based on hearing, we know that wisdom based on hearing cannot initiate action. Rebuttal: The mind at death is innate; if a mind that can initiate action is mentioned separately from innate \[mind at death\], what prevents a wisdom based on hearing that can initiate action from being mentioned separately from \[mere\] wisdom based on hearing? If you say that the mind at death is inferior and cannot initiate action, and therefore the innate mind that initiates action is mentioned separately, what prevents \[saying\] that wisdom based on hearing that does not initiate action is distinguished, while the mind of wisdom based on hearing that can initiate action is also subsumed under the mind that initiates action? Therefore, this is not a conclusive proof. Moreover, there are explicit texts; from this we know that the ancient master's statement is unreasonable. Another explanation: The four sāsrava wisdoms are associated and co-existent; only those that are co-existent causes (sahabhū-hetu) are called concomitant. The treatises are said to successively give rise to anāsrava wisdom; because the treatises are most remote in relation to the noble path, they are explained after the wisdoms. Although these wisdoms and treatises differ in their distance within the preceding preparatory stages relative to the noble path, because they are all superior provisions (sambhāra) for the noble path, they also receive the name 'abhidharma'. Regarding 'all treatises': this refers to the six pada treatises and the Jñānaprasthāna; by simply stating the root treatises, the derivative treatises can be subsumed. Alternatively, 'all treatises' also includes the derivative treatises. Regarding the six pada treatises: Śāriputra composed the Saṅgītiparyāya-pāda-śāstra in twelve thousand verses, with an abridged version of eight thousand verses (Śāri means here a crested myna; putra means 'son' in the language of the Tang). Mahāmaudgalyāyana composed the Dharmaskandha-pāda-śāstra in six thousand verses (Maudgalyāyana means here 'of the bean-gathering clan'; mahā means 'great' in the language of the Tang; hence the Dharmaskandha-pāda calls him the 'Great Bean-Gatherer'). Mahākātyāyana composed the Prajñapti-pāda-śāstra in eighteen thousand verses (Kātya means here 'shearing'; ayana means here 'lineage'; na is the masculine inflection; it is a brahmin gotra). The above three treatises were composed while the Buddha was in the world. Within one hundred years after the Buddha's nirvāṇa, Devaśarman composed the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra in seven thousand verses (this means 'Heavenly Quietude'). At the beginning of the three hundredth year, Vasumitra composed the Prakaraṇa-pāda-śāstra in six thousand verses (which is the old Abhidharma-prakaraṇa); he also composed the Dhātukāya-pāda-śāstra, the extensive text in six thousand verses and the abridged text in seven hundred verses (Vasumitra means here 'Friend of the World'; he is not the Vasumitra of the Vibhāṣā council, having the same name but being a different person). At the end of the three hundredth year, Kātyāyanīputra composed the Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra in twenty-five thousand verses. Later reciters had extensive and abridged versions that differed, one text having eighteen thousand verses and one text having sixteen thousand verses. This \[latter\] text is the one translated by the Upādhyāya \[Xuanzang\]. The doctrinal scope of the preceding six treatises is somewhat narrower, while that of the single treatise Jñānaprasthāna is the most extensive; therefore, later masters of the treatise spoke of the six as the 'feet' (pāda) and the Jñānaprasthāna as the 'body' (kāya). These seven treatises above are the fundamental treatises of the Sarvāstivāda school. The Upādhyāya left only the Prajñapti-pāda-śāstra untranslated; the other six treatises have all been completely translated. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.44) - [Next: 1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.46) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.1.45) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.57) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.45) · Pramāṇa