俱舍論記 15.172

15.172

「能引唯三至先業引故」者，答。可知。准此文，現業非感同分、不遮感命，故前延壽但延壽根，不言同分。又解：此文據常途說，現業非感同分。若據延壽，由別緣力，現業亦感同分。而延壽中但言感命非同分者，略舉一邊，以實而言亦感同分。問：如《婆沙》一百一十四云「問：幾業能引眾同分？幾能滿耶？或有說者，二能引眾同分亦能滿，謂順次生受業、順後次受業。二能滿眾同分不能引，謂順現法受業、順不定受業。復有說者，三能引眾同分亦能滿，謂除順現法受。一能滿眾同分不能引，謂順現法受。復有欲令順現法受業亦能引眾同分，若作是說：此四種業皆能引眾同分、滿眾同分。」於此《婆沙》三說之中，此論為同何說？何者為正？解云：此論同第二師，即以第二師為正。又解：《婆沙》既無評家，於三說中第二、第三俱可為正。第二師據常途說，故言現業不感同分。第三師亦據別緣，故言現業能感同分。此論若據常途，同第二師；若據別緣，亦同第三師。

"Those capable of projecting are only three … because it is projected by prior karma": the answer. It is understandable. In accordance with this text, present karma does not produce generic similarity and is not barred from producing lifespan; therefore, the prolongation of life discussed earlier only extends the life-faculty and does not speak of generic similarity. Another explanation: this text speaks according to the standard doctrine, that present karma does not produce generic similarity. If one speaks according to the prolongation of life, by the power of special conditions, present karma also produces generic similarity. And that, in the context of prolonging life, it only mentions producing lifespan and not generic similarity, is merely stating one aspect briefly; in truth, it also produces generic similarity. Question: As the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 114, says: "Question: How many karmas can project the generic similarity? How many can complete it? Some say: Two can project the generic similarity and can also complete it, namely, karma to be experienced in the subsequent life and karma to be experienced in lives after next; two can complete the generic similarity but cannot project it, namely, karma to be experienced in the present life and karma whose experience is undetermined. Others say: Three can project the generic similarity and can also complete it, namely, excluding karma to be experienced in the present life; one can complete the generic similarity but cannot project it, namely, karma to be experienced in the present life. Still others wish to maintain that karma to be experienced in the present life can also project the generic similarity; if one maintains this, all four kinds of karma can project the generic similarity and complete the generic similarity." Among these three explanations of the Mahāvibhāṣā, which explanation does this treatise agree with? Which is correct? The explanation says: This treatise agrees with the second master, thus taking the second master as correct. Another explanation: Since the Mahāvibhāṣā gives no critical evaluation, among the three explanations, both the second and the third may be considered correct. The second master speaks according to the standard doctrine, hence stating that present karma does not produce generic similarity. The third master also takes special conditions into account, hence stating that present karma can produce generic similarity. If this treatise relies on the standard doctrine, it agrees with the second master; if it relies on special conditions, it also agrees with the third master.