俱舍論記 13.204

13.204

「一切無漏至任運轉故」者，釋第八句。諸無漏心非轉、隨轉，唯在定故，內門而轉，望業無能。異熟生心非轉、隨轉，不由加行任運轉故，其性羸劣，望業無能。《正理》難云「然說無漏，異熟非者，此有大減及太過失，有漏定心亦俱非故。諸異熟識但可非轉；能為隨轉，何理能遮？」又云「異熟生心外門轉故能為隨轉。」又云「但應說異熟生心勢微劣故非因等起，不應說言不由加行任運轉故。勿生得善亦不為因發有表業，亦非加行任運轉故。」俱舍師救云：有漏定心理同無漏非轉、隨轉，唯在定言已遮顯故，故不別說。異熟生心雖外門轉，善、惡業感不由加行任運而生，性羸劣故，非轉、隨轉。生得善心豈同於彼？一即非從業感、二即其性是強，故亦非難。此即違理，又教相違。故《婆沙》一百十七云「問：異熟生心何故不能作二等起發身、語業耶？答：強盛心發身、語業。異熟生心其性羸劣，故不能發。」廣如彼說。又解：如異熟心雖外門轉，性羸劣故非轉、隨轉。有漏定心雖內門轉，性強盛故望業有力，何妨能為隨轉。作此通釋，何減？何增？

"All anāsrava minds... because they function spontaneously": this explains the eighth line. All anāsrava minds are neither motivators nor concurrent motivators: because they abide solely in concentration, functioning at the internal gateway, they are powerless with respect to action. Minds born of fruition-maturation are neither motivators nor concurrent motivators: because they function spontaneously without preparatory effort, their nature is feeble and powerless with respect to action. The Nyāyānusāra objects: "Yet saying that anāsrava minds and maturation minds are neither has both an omission that is too great and a fault that is too extensive, because sāsrava minds of concentration are also neither. All maturation consciousnesses can merely be non-motivators; what reason could prevent them from acting as concurrent motivators?" It also says: "Because minds born of maturation function in the external sphere, they can act as concurrent motivators." It further says: "One should merely state that because the momentum of minds born of maturation is weak and feeble, they are not causal originations; one should not say that it is because they function spontaneously without preparatory effort. Otherwise, innately acquired wholesome minds would also not act as causes that initiate informative action, since they too function spontaneously without preparatory effort." The Kośa master defends [his view]: Sāsrava minds of concentration are logically the same as anāsrava ones in being neither motivators nor concurrent motivators; because the phrase 'abide solely in concentration' has already excluded and clarified this, they are not separately mentioned. Although minds born of maturation function in the external sphere, they are produced spontaneously without preparatory effort as the result of wholesome or unwholesome actions; because their nature is feeble, they are neither motivators nor concurrent motivators. How could innately acquired wholesome minds be the same as them? First, they are not resulting from karmic maturation; second, their nature is strong; hence this is not a valid objection. This [counter-objection] contradicts reason, and also conflicts with the teaching. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 117, says: "Question: Why cannot a mind born of maturation act as the two originations to initiate bodily and vocal actions? Answer: A forceful mind initiates bodily and vocal actions. The nature of a mind born of maturation is feeble, and therefore cannot initiate them." It is as fully explained there. Another interpretation: just as a maturation mind, though functioning in the external sphere, is neither motivator nor concurrent motivator because its nature is feeble, so a sāsrava mind of concentration, though functioning at the internal gateway, is forceful with respect to action because its nature is strong; what is to prevent it from acting as a concurrent motivator? If this interpretation is made, what omission is there? What excess?