俱舍論記 15.96

15.96

「二由勢力至盡時便止」者，二由勢力斷壞故捨。謂由淨信、猛利煩惱二勢力故，引起無表。彼二限勢若斷壞時，無表便捨。喻況可知。問：如《正理》云「二由勢力斷壞故捨，謂由淨信、煩惱勢力所引無表，彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便捨，如所放箭及陶家輪。故軌範師作如是說：由等起力所引發故，雖捨加行及阿世耶，無表或容盡壽隨轉。乃至發起極猛利纏捶擊禽獸，應知亦爾。或先立限齊爾所時，今限勢過無表便斷。」又《婆沙》一百二十二云「限勢未過，謂淳淨心及猛利纏所作善、惡，隨彼勢力無表不斷。如猛利纏殺捃多蟻（此云折脚蟻，或云卵蟻。名含二義，是故不翻。彼非為害，顯殺無慚），所發無表盡形相續。淳淨信心所作亦爾，謂如有人起殷重信，修營供具奉施眾僧，燒香、散花種種供養。或於佛說如是日、月、五年會等，請諸眾僧種種供養，起淳淨心發身、語業，乃至意樂未息或加行未捨，無表不斷。若意樂息及捨加行，無表便斷。」餘處中行，廣說亦爾。《正理》即云「雖捨加行及阿世耶，無表或容盡壽隨轉。」《婆沙》即云「若意樂息及捨加行，無表便斷。」俱釋勢力斷捨，何故兩論不同？《俱舍》復同何說？解云：淨信、猛纏各有三品，謂上上、上中、上下。若起上上淨信、猛纏，於其中間雖意樂息及捨加行，無表不斷。若起上中、上下淨信、猛纏，於其中間意樂息、捨加行，無表即斷。《正理》通據三品說，若起上上品，盡壽隨轉；若起上中、上下，即非盡壽。故說或容，顯彼不定。《婆沙》、此文，若據上中、上下二品淨信、猛纏，故言意樂息、捨加行，無表便斷。或作論者意各別故。《俱舍》既無明文，或同《正理》、或同《婆沙》，或謂同兩論，皆無妨矣。《婆沙》、《雜心》名限勢過，名異義同。

"Second, due to force... it ceases when exhausted": this means abandonment due to the severance and destruction of force. That is, avijñapti is induced by the two forces of pure faith and fierce defilement. When the limited force of those two is severed and destroyed, the avijñapti is then abandoned. The analogy can be understood. Question: As the Nyāyānusāra says: "Second, abandonment due to the severance and destruction of force: that is, with the avijñapti induced by the force of pure faith or defilement, when the limited force of those two is severed and destroyed, the avijñapti is then abandoned, just like a released arrow or a potter's wheel. Therefore, the ācāryas have said: 'Because it is induced by the power of origination (samutthāna), even though one abandons preliminary activity (prayoga) and intention (āśaya), the avijñapti may perhaps continue throughout life. Up to and including giving rise to an extremely fierce defilement to beat beasts and birds—it should be known that this is also like this. Or, having earlier set a limit of just so much time, now that the limited force has expired, the avijñapti is severed.'" Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 122 says: "The limited force has not expired: that is, regarding the good and evil done with a pure mind and fierce defilement, the avijñapti is uninterrupted in accordance with that force. For example, if with fierce defilement one kills a kunta ant (translated here as 'broken-legged ant', or 'egg-bearing ant'; the name contains both meanings, so it is not translated; it is not harmful, which shows that killing it is utterly shameless), the avijñapti brought forth continues until the end of one's bodily form. What is done with a mind of pure faith is also like this: for instance, if a person gives rise to profound faith, prepares offerings, presents them as gifts to the Saṃgha, and makes various offerings by burning incense and scattering flowers; or on such days, months, five-year assemblies, etc., as spoken of by the Buddha, invites the Saṃgha and makes various offerings, giving rise to a pure mind and bringing forth bodily and vocal karma—as long as their intention has not ceased or their preliminary activity has not been abandoned, the avijñapti is uninterrupted. If the intention ceases or the preliminary activity is abandoned, the avijñapti is severed." Other intermediate actions are also extensively explained in this way. Thus the Nyāyānusāra says: "Even though one abandons preliminary activity and intention, the avijñapti may perhaps continue throughout life." But the Mahāvibhāṣā says: "If the intention ceases or the preliminary activity is abandoned, the avijñapti is severed." Both are explaining abandonment by severance of force; why do the two treatises differ? And with which explanation does the Kośa agree? The explanation is: pure faith and fierce defilement each have three grades: upper-upper, upper-middle, and upper-lower. If one gives rise to upper-upper pure faith or fierce defilement, even though in the interim the intention ceases and preliminary activity is abandoned, the avijñapti is uninterrupted. If one gives rise to upper-middle or upper-lower pure faith or fierce defilement, and in the interim the intention ceases or preliminary activity is abandoned, the avijñapti is severed. The Nyāyānusāra speaks generally in terms of the three grades: if one gives rise to the upper-upper grade, it continues throughout life; if one gives rise to upper-middle or upper-lower, then it does not last throughout life. Therefore, it says "may perhaps", showing that it is indeterminate. The Mahāvibhāṣā and the present text, speaking in terms of the two grades of upper-middle and upper-lower pure faith and fierce defilement, therefore say that if the intention ceases or preliminary activity is abandoned, the avijñapti is severed. Or it may be because the treatise-masters each had different intentions. Since the Kośa has no explicit text, it may agree with the Nyāyānusāra, or with the Mahāvibhāṣā, or it may be said to agree with both treatises; in either case, there is no contradiction. In the Mahāvibhāṣā and the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, it is named "expiration of the limited force"; the names differ, but the meaning is the same.