俱舍論記 10.131

10.131

「說色界繫已至如後當辨」者，明無色界。空處近分有四近行俱得緣色，一緣無色。四無色本及上三邊唯一法捨，唯緣無色。空處近分二說不同，前說為正。故《婆沙》一百三十九云「若許別緣下者，則有四意近行，謂色、聲、觸、法。若許總緣下者，則唯有一法捨意近行。如是說者應說有四。」問：此意近行通三性不？解云：准下成就，通於三性。問：此意近行，自、上、下地通能緣不？解云：容緣三種。若善，通緣自、上、下地。若染污，緣自、上地；不緣下，已離故。若無記，緣自、下；非緣上，力劣故。故《婆沙》七十二解三分別中云「善分別意識能緣一切自、上、下地。染污分別意識唯緣自、上地。無覆無記分別意識唯能緣自、下地。」問：若無記能緣下者，何故《正理》二十九解近行中，別標色善能緣欲界，不言無記？解云：以善近行身在下地，身在上地，俱能起彼地善緣下欲界，是故別說。無記近行身在下地，即不能起上地緣下，故不別說。問：身生何地能起何地意近行耶？解云：若善、染，容起自、上，非能起下善、染，以喜劣故、染已離故。若無記，容起自、上、下地。起自可知。言起上者，如身在下地，起上通果心。言起下者，如身在上，起下通果心。問：若無記心通起上、下，何故《婆沙》解三分別中云「無覆無記分別意識唯生自地容現在前，由此必定繫屬生故。」又《正理》第八云「非生餘地能起餘地無覆無記分別現前，此亦必定繫屬生故。」解云：《婆沙》、《正理》意說五識引起意識地中三種分別，緣前過去五識所緣色等五境。夫生餘地起餘地無覆無記，所謂變化心、三識身及發業心。若化心，唯緣現事。若三識，性非分別，又唯緣現。若發業心，緣所發業。此等非是緣過去五識曾所緣境分別意識，所以《婆沙》、《正理》說無記分別唯自地能起，不能起餘地。今言無覆無記近行通起上、下，據意識中所有無覆無記諸近行說，故不相違。問：若依《正理》，又說近行欲界緣不繫境有三；色界中初、二緣不繫有二，三、四緣不繫有一；無色緣不繫亦一。此論何故不說？解云：此論且據緣繫，所以不言不繫；《正理》兼論，故說二種。

"Having spoken of those bound to the form realm... as will be analyzed later": this explains the formless realm. The preparatory stage of the station of infinite space has four mental explorations that can all take the form realm as object, and one that takes the formless realm as object. The four fundamental formless attainments and their upper three borders have only one equanimity of dharmas, which exclusively takes the formless realm as object. Regarding the preparatory stage of the station of infinite space, there are two differing explanations, and the former explanation is correct. Thus the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 139, says: "If one accepts that it takes lower realms as objects separately, then there are four mental explorations, namely form, sound, tangible, and dharma. If one accepts that it takes lower realms as objects collectively, then there is only one mental exploration of equanimity regarding dharmas. The authoritative explanation is that there are four." Question: Do these mental explorations extend to the three moral natures? Explanation: In accordance with their possession (prāpti) explained below, they extend to all three natures. Question: Can these mental explorations take their own, higher, and lower stages as objects indiscriminately? Explanation: They can take all three kinds as objects. If wholesome, they take their own, higher, and lower stages as objects indiscriminately. If defiled, they take their own and higher stages as objects; they do not take lower stages as objects, because detachment from them has already occurred. If indeterminate (avyākṛta), they take their own and lower stages as objects; they do not take higher stages as objects, because their power is weak. Thus the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 72, in explaining the three kinds of conceptual discrimination (vikalpa), says: "Wholesome discriminative mental consciousness can take all of its own, higher, and lower stages as objects. Defiled discriminative mental consciousness only takes its own and higher stages as objects. Non-obscured indeterminate discriminative mental consciousness can only take its own and lower stages as objects." Question: If indeterminate consciousness can take lower stages as objects, why does Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 29, in explaining mental explorations, specifically state that wholesome consciousness of the form realm can take the desire realm as object, without mentioning indeterminate consciousness? Explanation: Because with wholesome explorations, whether one's body is in a lower stage or in a higher stage, one can in both cases give rise to wholesome consciousness of that stage taking the lower desire realm as object; therefore it is spoken of specifically. With indeterminate explorations, when one's body is in a lower stage, one cannot give rise to a higher stage taking a lower stage as object; therefore it is not spoken of specifically. Question: When one's body is born in a given stage, the mental explorations of which stage can one bring forth? Explanation: If wholesome or defiled, one can bring forth those of one's own or higher stages, but cannot bring forth wholesome or defiled ones of lower stages, because gladness is inferior and defilement has already been abandoned. If indeterminate, one can bring forth those of one's own, higher, and lower stages. Bringing forth those of one's own stage is understood. As for bringing forth higher ones: for example, when one's body is in a lower stage, one brings forth a mind resulting from higher supernormal powers. As for bringing forth lower ones: for example, when one's body is in a higher stage, one brings forth a mind resulting from lower supernormal powers. Question: If an indeterminate mind can generally arise for higher and lower stages, why does the Vibhāṣā, in explaining the three kinds of conceptual discrimination, state: "Non-obscured indeterminate discriminative mental consciousness can only become present when born in its own stage, because it is necessarily tied to birth"? And Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 8, also says: "One born in another stage cannot bring into presence the non-obscured indeterminate conceptual discrimination of another stage, because this is also necessarily tied to birth"? Explanation: The intention of the Vibhāṣā and Nyāyānusāra is to speak of the three kinds of conceptual discrimination in the mental consciousness stage induced by the five consciousnesses, taking as objects the five spheres of form and so forth that were previously objects of the past five consciousnesses. Now, when one born in another stage brings forth the non-obscured indeterminate consciousness of another stage, these are what are known as the transformation mind (nirmāṇa-citta), the three consciousness-bodies, and the karma-initiating mind. As for the transformation mind, it only takes present things as objects. As for the three consciousnesses, their nature is not conceptual discrimination, and they also only take the present as objects. As for the karma-initiating mind, it takes the initiated karma as object. These are not discriminative mental consciousnesses taking as objects the spheres previously cognized by the past five consciousnesses; therefore the Vibhāṣā and Nyāyānusāra state that indeterminate conceptual discrimination can only be brought forth by its own stage, and cannot be brought forth by another stage. When we say here that non-obscured indeterminate explorations can arise generally for higher and lower stages, this is spoken in reference to all non-obscured indeterminate explorations within mental consciousness; hence there is no contradiction. Question: According to the Nyāyānusāra, it also says that in the desire realm, mental explorations taking unbound (apratisaṃyukta) objects are three; in the form realm, the first and second have two taking unbound objects, the third and fourth have one taking unbound objects; and in the formless realm, one also takes unbound objects. Why does this treatise not mention this? Explanation: This treatise merely deals with taking bound objects as objects, and therefore does not mention the unbound; the Nyāyānusāra considers both together, and therefore speaks of both kinds.