俱舍論記 10.207

10.207

「非在定心至能攝益故」者，此釋初章。非在定心有死、生義：一界地別故，夫死、生心必起當地，若起異界、地有起死、生者，便是他界地死、生，非是自界地死、生。二加行生故，夫死、生心任運起故；三能攝益故，夫死、生心是微劣故，不能攝益。即由此三因，顯異地染心無死、生理。故《正理》云「異地染心亦攝益故、加行起故，無命終理。異地染心必勝地攝，何容樂往劣地受生，故彼亦無能受生理（已上論文）。」由此三因，亦顯異地淨無記心無死生理。又解：於三因中但由前二，界、地別故，加行生故，能顯異地淨無記心無死、生理。故《正理》云「一切異地淨無記心，加行起故無命終理，非染污故無受生理（已上論文）。」問：如起異地通果心，及生二定已上起下初定威儀意識，可由加行起。生二定已上泛爾起下三識威儀心，非加行生，如何乃言一切異地淨無記心，加行起故？解云：《正理》且據異地通果意識、威儀意識，故言一切加行起故。受生命終唯在意識，在意識者尚非受生命終，在五識者理在絕言，故不別說。又解：《正理》亦簡二通，以彼二通加行起故。雖在五識無有受生命終道理，以加行言，亦遮彼故。又解：《正理》亦簡泛爾起下三識威儀起異地心難，藉加行起故。文中既言一切不別簡別，應知亦攝下起下三識。雖有三解，然更勘其文，必不能起異地散善，故不別簡。或界、地別已遮遣故。

Regarding "Not in an absorbed mind ... because it can foster and benefit": this explains the first heading. It is not the case that death and rebirth occur in an absorbed mind: first, because the realms and stages are different—the mind of death and rebirth necessarily arises in its own stage; if death or rebirth were to arise with the mind of a different realm or stage, it would be a death or rebirth of that other realm or stage, not a death or rebirth of one's own realm or stage. Second, because it arises through exertion—the mind of death and rebirth arises spontaneously; third, because it can foster and benefit—the mind of death and rebirth is subtle and weak, unable to foster and benefit. Thus, due to these three causes, it is shown that a defiled mind of a different stage lacks the principle of death and rebirth. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "A defiled mind of a different stage also fosters and benefits and arises through exertion, so it lacks the principle of ending life. A defiled mind of a different stage is necessarily subsumed under a superior stage; how could it take pleasure in going to an inferior stage to take rebirth? Hence it also lacks the principle of being able to take rebirth (end of treatise citation)." Due to these three causes, it is also shown that a pure indeterminate mind of a different stage lacks the principle of death and rebirth. Another explanation: Among the three causes, solely through the first two—the difference of realms and stages and its arising through exertion—can one show that a pure indeterminate mind of a different stage lacks the principle of death and rebirth. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "All pure indeterminate minds of a different stage, because they arise through exertion, lack the principle of ending life; because they are not defiled, they lack the principle of taking rebirth (end of treatise citation)." Question: Minds that are the fruits of supernormal powers of a different stage, or the bodily deportment mental consciousness of the lower first dhyāna arising [when one is] born in the second dhyāna or above, may well arise through exertion. But when one born in the second dhyāna or above casually gives rise to the deportment mind of the lower three [sensory] consciousnesses, that does not arise through exertion; how then can one say that all pure indeterminate minds of a different stage arise through exertion? The explanation is: The *Nyāyānusāra* tentatively takes into account the mental consciousness of supernormal fruits of a different stage and the mental consciousness of bodily deportment, and therefore says "all arise through exertion." Taking rebirth and ending life occur only in the mental consciousness; since even that which occurs in the mental consciousness is not taking rebirth or ending life, it goes without saying that it cannot occur in the five consciousnesses, which is why it does not distinguish them. Another explanation: The *Nyāyānusāra* also excludes the two supernormal powers [of the eye and ear] because those two supernormal powers arise through exertion. Although in the five consciousnesses there is no principle of taking rebirth or ending life, by using the word "exertion", it also excludes them. Another explanation: The *Nyāyānusāra* also resolves the objection regarding casually giving rise to the deportment mind of the lower three consciousnesses of a different stage, because it relies on exertion to arise. Since the text says "all" without making a separate exclusion, one should know that it also includes the lower three consciousnesses arising below. Although there are three explanations, upon further examination of the text, one definitely cannot give rise to distracted wholesome states of a different stage, which is why it makes no separate exclusion; or [it is omitted because] the difference of realms and stages has already ruled it out.