俱舍論記 13.185

13.185

「若爾定心至應設劬勞」者，論主復難。若爾，定心隨轉無表，非正在定作意引生，亦非散心加行引發，散與隨轉不同類故。或定、散別不同類故，應如大種非故心生，如何成善？《正理》三十六救云「隨定無表定等力生，理亦應成等起善性。」俱舍師破云：若定無表由定等力而得生故名等起善，大種亦有由心力生，應名等起善不善性。若言大種非作意生，此定無表豈故意起，或天眼、耳，如善身、語應成善性，以是善心所等起故。此難二根，或難二通，或根、通俱難。前說為善，難同類色是等起故。進退徵責，理實難通，應設劬勞思求異釋。《正理》救云「此難非理。以彼二通解脫道心是無記故，彼二與道俱時生故。通斯似難，何費劬勞。俱舍師破云：若天眼、耳由與無記道俱生故無記者，既由道力應名等起。若言非由彼道力故成無記者，道俱生言何成解釋？真難未通，劬勞遂費。

Regarding the passage from "If so, then the non-manifestation conforming to the concentrated mind..." up to "one should take the trouble": the author of the treatise (Vasubandhu) raises another objection. If so, then the non-manifestation conforming to the concentrated mind is neither induced by mental engagement while in meditative concentration, nor induced by preparatory effort in a distracted mind, because a distracted mind and a conforming [non-manifestation] are not of the same class; or, because concentration and distraction differ and are not of the same class, it should be like the great elements in not being produced by an intentional mind—how then could it become good? The Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 36, defends: "The non-manifestation conforming to concentration arises by the power of concentration and so forth, and by reasoning it should also become good by origination in nature." The Kośa master refutes this: If the non-manifestation of concentration is called good by origination because it arises by the power of concentration and so on, then the great elements also arise by the power of mind, and should thus be called good or unwholesome by origination in nature. If you say that the great elements are not produced by mental engagement, could this non-manifestation of concentration be arisen intentionally? Or, the divine eye and ear should become good in nature just like good bodily and vocal actions, because they are originated by a good mind. This objects to the two sense faculties, or objects to the two supernatural powers (abhijñā), or objects to both faculties and supernatural powers together. Previously, it was stated to be good; here, it objects that form of the same class is originated. Pressing the critique back and forth, the principle is indeed difficult to reconcile, and one should take the trouble to reflect and seek another explanation. The Nyāyānusāra defends: "This objection is unreasonable. Because the mind of the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga) for those two supernatural powers is neutral, those two arise simultaneously with that path. When this apparent objection is resolved, why waste one's labor?" The Kośa master refutes this: If the divine eye and ear are neutral because they arise simultaneously with a neutral path, then since they arise through the power of that path, they should be called originated [by it]. If you say they do not become neutral through the power of that path, how does saying they are simultaneous with the path constitute an explanation? The genuine objection has not been answered, and thus the labor was wasted after all.