俱舍論記 15.83

15.83

「論曰至與色界異」者，釋上兩句。殊勝善根，謂煖等四。異生命終捨眾同分，若生欲界、若生上地，定捨彼故。餘文可知。總而言之，定生戒等由三緣捨：一易地、二得退、三命終。隨心轉戒隨心而得，以捨心故戒亦隨捨，故捨心有三緣，戒亦三緣捨。故《入阿毘達磨論》云「靜慮律儀由得色界善心故得，由捨色界善心故捨，屬彼心故。無漏律儀得、捨亦爾，隨無漏心而得捨故（已上論文）。」無色如色，易地、退捨，但無戒異。《正理》三十九彈云「捨眾同分及離染時，亦捨煖等及退分定。為攝此故，復說等言。經主釋中應加離染。如捨色善，由易地、退及離染三。無色亦爾。」俱舍師救云：雖離第九品染能捨退分，離前八品即不能捨。離染名總，恐有所濫，故我不說。異生若成煖等善根，命終定捨，雖少故說。又解：略而不論。今准此論及《正理論》，唯煖等四順決擇分名殊勝善根命終捨；餘順決擇分非是殊勝，命終不捨。一《正理》但云煖等。二《俱舍》以色二緣例同無色。若餘決擇亦命終捨，無色亦有順決擇分，何故不說命終捨耶？三《正理》但以色界三緣例同無色，不言命終。以此故知餘順決擇非是殊勝、非命終捨，唯煖等四名殊勝善根，唯說異生命終捨故。雖聖亦捨煖等善根，由易地捨，非由命終。若當地死還生當地，即不捨也。問：若說定戒，此論說命終捨，捨緣有三。《正理》又說離染捨，捨緣有四。若說三緣、四緣，即與《五事論》相違。彼論云「問：靜慮律儀何緣故得？何緣故捨？答：色界善心若得便得，若捨便捨。此復二種：一由退故、二由界地有轉易故。」解云：《五事論》據全捨故說二種，此論、《正理》通據少分故，或說三種或說四種。問：別解脫戒與靜慮戒同是有漏，二俱是善，何故捨緣差別不同？解云：若以別解五緣對定戒，別解脫戒得由表業故心受得，還由表業故心捨，彼得有故捨。定戒非由故心表得，無有故捨。別解依身，有所依變心亦隨變，故有二形捨。定戒依身，無所依變心亦隨變，故無二形捨。別解得，由因等起心，由起邪見斷彼善心，由失彼善即失彼戒，故有斷善捨。定戒由定心得，必無邪見能斷定心。諸論說唯欲邪見斷欲生得，故無斷善捨。別解有晝、夜分限，有夜盡捨。定戒無斯分限，無夜盡捨，唯命終捨。同彼定戒，然別解命終全捨，定戒命終分捨煖等。總而言之，別解對定戒，四別一同。若以定戒三緣對別解脫戒，定戒有上、下生易地失，故有易地捨。別解命終必定捨，故但由命終；非由易地失，故無易地捨。定戒由退，起惑有退彼定，由退定故即退定戒，故有退捨。別解非由退，起惑故失求戒心，故無退捨。若依《正理》，更有離染捨緣不同。謂彼定戒由離染時捨退分定，由捨彼定故，即捨彼定俱時戒故，故定戒有離染捨。別解脫戒非由離染捨求戒心，故無離染捨，唯有命終捨。分同別解脫。總而言之，以定俱戒對別解脫，若依此論二別一同，若依《正理》一同三別。

"The commentary says: ... different from the form realm": Explaining the first two lines. "Distinguished wholesome roots" refers to the four [stages], beginning with Heat (uṣmagata). When an ordinary worldling's life ends and he abandons the generic similarity of sentient beings (nikāya-sabhāga), whether born in the desire realm or born in a higher stage, he definitely abandons them. The remaining text is easily understood. In summary, the discipline born of concentration and so forth is abandoned through three conditions: first, change of stage; second, falling away; third, end of life. The precepts that conform to the mind are obtained in accordance with the mind; because the mind is abandoned, the precepts are also abandoned along with it. Therefore, since there are three conditions for abandoning the mind, the precepts are also abandoned by three conditions. Thus the Abhidharmāvatāra states: "The dhyāna discipline is obtained through obtaining a wholesome mind of the form realm, and is abandoned through abandoning a wholesome mind of the form realm, because it belongs to that mind. The obtaining and abandoning of the uncontaminated discipline are also like this, because they are obtained and abandoned conforming to an uncontaminated mind (end of treatise passage)." The formless [realm] is like the form [realm]: it is abandoned through change of stage and falling away, differing only in having no precepts. Nyāyānusāra 39 criticizes: "When abandoning the generic similarity of sentient beings and when separating from passion, one also abandons Heat and so forth as well as the concentration associated with falling away (hānabhāgīya). In order to include these, the word 'and so forth' is stated again. In the master of the treatise's commentary, separation from passion should be added. Just as abandoning the wholesome of the form realm is by three [conditions]—change of stage, falling away, and separation from passion—the formless realm is also like this." The master of the Kośa defends: Although separating from the passion of the ninth grade can abandon what pertains to falling away, separating from the previous eight grades cannot abandon it. "Separation from passion" is a general term, and out of fear that it might lead to confusion, I do not mention it. If an ordinary worldling achieves wholesome roots such as Heat, when his life ends he definitely abandons them, so it is mentioned despite being rare. Another explanation: it is omitted without discussion. Now, based on this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra, only the four aids to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya)—Heat and so forth—are named distinguished wholesome roots that are abandoned at the end of life; the other aids to penetration are not distinguished, and are not abandoned at the end of life. First, the Nyāyānusāra only mentions Heat and so forth. Second, the Kośa uses the two conditions of the form realm as an analogy for the formless realm: if the other [aids to] penetration were also abandoned at the end of life, since the formless realm also has aids to penetration, why does it not say they are abandoned at the end of life? Third, the Nyāyānusāra only uses the three conditions of the form realm as an analogy for the formless realm, and does not mention the end of life. From this, we know that the other aids to penetration are not distinguished and are not abandoned at the end of life; only the four, Heat and so forth, are called distinguished wholesome roots, because it is only stated that an ordinary worldling abandons them at the end of life. Although an ārya also abandons the wholesome roots of Heat and so forth, he abandons them through change of stage, not through the end of life. If one dies in that stage and is reborn back into that same stage, he does not abandon them. Question: If we speak of the precepts of concentration, this treatise says they are abandoned at the end of life, so there are three conditions for abandonment; the Nyāyānusāra also says they are abandoned upon separation from passion, so there are four conditions for abandonment. If we speak of three conditions or four conditions, this conflicts with the Pañcavastuka. That treatise states: "Question: Through what conditions is the dhyāna discipline obtained? Through what conditions is it abandoned? Answer: If a wholesome mind of the form realm is obtained, it is obtained; if it is abandoned, it is abandoned. This is again of two kinds: first, through falling away; second, through change of realm and stage." Solution: The Pañcavastuka speaks of two kinds on the basis of complete abandonment; this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra speak of three or four kinds on the basis of both [complete and] partial abandonment. Question: The prātimokṣa precepts and the dhyāna precepts are both sāsrava and both wholesome; why are their conditions for abandonment differentiated and not the same? Solution: If we contrast the five conditions of prātimokṣa with the concentration precepts: obtaining the prātimokṣa precepts occurs through intentional mental reception by means of manifest action (vijñapti-karman), and they are in turn abandoned through intentional mind by means of manifest action—they have intentional abandonment. The concentration precepts are not obtained by an intentional mind through manifest action, and do not have intentional abandonment. Prātimokṣa relies on the physical body; when the basis changes, the mind also changes along with it, hence there is abandonment through the emergence of both sexes. The concentration precepts rely on the body without the basis changing such that the mind changes along with it, hence there is no abandonment through the emergence of both sexes. Obtaining prātimokṣa occurs through an initial motivated mind; through the arising of false views, that wholesome mind is severed, and by losing that wholesome [mind] one loses those precepts, hence there is abandonment through severing wholesome roots. The concentration precepts are obtained through a concentrated mind, and there can definitely be no false view capable of severing a concentrated mind. The treatises state that only desire-realm false views sever desire-realm innate [wholesome roots], hence there is no abandonment through severing wholesome roots. Prātimokṣa has day and night limits, and there is abandonment at the end of the night. The concentration precepts have no such limits, and have no abandonment at the end of the night; they are abandoned only at the end of life. In this they are like the concentration precepts, yet prātimokṣa is completely abandoned at the end of life, whereas the concentration precepts are only partially abandoned at the end of life, namely Heat and so forth. In summary: contrasting prātimokṣa with the concentration precepts, four [conditions] are different and one is shared. If we contrast the three conditions of the concentration precepts with the prātimokṣa precepts: the concentration precepts have loss through change of stage by birth above or below, hence they have abandonment through change of stage. Prātimokṣa is definitely abandoned at the end of life, so it is solely through the end of life; it is not lost through change of stage, hence it has no abandonment through change of stage. For the concentration precepts, through falling away, the arising of defilement causes falling away from that concentration; through falling away from concentration, one falls away from the concentration precepts, hence there is abandonment through falling away. Prātimokṣa is not through falling away: the arising of defilements does not cause the loss of the mind seeking the precepts, hence there is no abandonment through falling away. If we follow the Nyāyānusāra, there is further a difference regarding the condition of abandonment through separation from passion. That is to say, because those concentration precepts abandon the concentration associated with falling away when separating from passion, and by abandoning that concentration one abandons the precepts simultaneous with that concentration, the concentration precepts have abandonment through separation from passion. The prātimokṣa precepts do not abandon the mind seeking the precepts through separation from passion, hence they have no abandonment through separation from passion; they only have abandonment at the end of life, partially identical with prātimokṣa. In summary: contrasting the precepts associated with concentration with prātimokṣa, according to this treatise two are different and one is shared; according to the Nyāyānusāra, one is shared and three are different.