俱舍論記 10.120

10.120

「傳說初界至意近行故」者，答。毘婆沙師傳說：於三界中若欲界有者上界亦立，以初欲界意識相應無樂根故，所以上界亦不別立。又無樂根所對苦根意近行故，所以不立樂意近行。《正理》二十九難此解云「若爾，應無捨意近行，無所對故。不爾，憂、喜即捨對故。第三靜慮意地樂根無自根本地捨根為對故。然無近分等，無捨等近行失，以於初界中有同地所對故。或復容有、不容有故，謂意捨等容有同地所敵對法，意樂定無同地敵對，故無有失（解云：意地憂喜即為捨對，若爾即捨名為樂對，以於同地無捨對故。謂於三定自根本地無所對捨，若爾近分唯有捨根，自地無對應非近行。及初、二定所有喜根自地無對，應非近行。不爾，欲界捨及喜根皆有同地所對法故。或捨與喜容有自地所敵對法，謂欲界中曾無樂有自地所對故，彼不可意近行收）。」又《正理》解云「又彼地樂凝滯於境，近行於境數有推移，不滯一緣方名行故。」

"It is traditionally said that from the first realm... [joy is not established as] a mental exploration": this is the answer. The masters of the Vibhāṣā say by tradition: Among the three realms, if something exists in the desire realm, it is also established in the higher realms. Because in the first, desire realm, there is no pleasure faculty (sukhendriya) associated with mental consciousness, therefore it is also not established separately in the higher realms. Furthermore, because there is no mental exploration of the faculty of pain (duḥkhendriya) that is the opposite of the pleasure faculty, a mental exploration of pleasure is not established. Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 29, raises an objection against this explanation, saying: "If so, there should be no mental exploration of equanimity (upekṣā), because it would lack an opposite. [Response:] That is not so, because grief (daurmanasya) and gladness (saumanasya) are indeed the opposites of equanimity. It is because the mental pleasure faculty in the third dhyāna has no equanimity faculty belonging to its own fundamental stage to serve as its opposite. However, there is no fault that the preparatory stages (sāmantaka) lack mental explorations such as equanimity, because in the first realm they have opposites belonging to the same stage. Or alternatively, it is because of what may or may not possibly exist: that is, mental equanimity and the like may possibly have a counter-dharma of the same stage, whereas mental pleasure definitely has no counter-dharma of the same stage; hence there is no fault." (Explanation: Grief and gladness of the mental stage are the opposites of equanimity; if so, then equanimity would be called the opposite of pleasure, but it has no opposite equanimity in the same stage. That is to say, in the third dhyāna's own fundamental stage there is no equanimity to be its opposite. If so, then the preparatory stage would only have the equanimity faculty, and having no opposite in its own stage, it should not be a mental exploration; and all the gladness faculties in the first and second dhyānas, having no opposite in their own stage, should not be mental explorations. [Response:] That is not so, because both equanimity and the gladness faculty in the desire realm have dharmas of the same stage as their opposites. Or, equanimity and gladness may possibly have dharmas of their own stage as counter-opposites, whereas in the desire realm pleasure has never had an opposite of its own stage; therefore it cannot be included among mental explorations.) Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra explains: "Moreover, pleasure in that stage adheres stagnantly to the object, whereas mental exploration repeatedly shifts regarding the object; only when it does not stagnate upon a single condition is it called an exploration (upavicāra)."