俱舍論記 16.157

16.157

「若不動身至應設劬勞」者，論主難。若彼仙人及布灑他時，而不動身亦不發語，於欲界中無有無表離表而生。此殺、誑語如何成業道？於如是難，應設劬勞思求解釋。《正理》四十二救云「然我且釋布灑他時。如由動身能表語義，生語業道。若身不動能表語義，業道亦生。然說戒時，彼有所犯默然表淨令眾咸知，如何不生妄語業道？仙人意憤義等教他，彼於有情心無所顧，非人敬彼知有惡心，動身為殺，彼生業道。仙以何表令鬼知心？彼由意憤，身、語必變。或由呪詛，必動身、語。」有餘師說：非於欲界一切無表悉依表生，如得果時五苾芻等得別解脫戒。不善亦應然。然彼先時決定有表，餘亦應爾。仙如前說。布灑他時得妄語者，謂不清淨詐入僧中，坐現威儀。或有所說：此謂先表，餘例應知。解云：然我已下至必動身語，眾賢釋布灑他時，及仙意憤成二業道。二敘異說。有餘師說：非於欲界一切無表悉依表生。於前所說十種得戒中，如佛、獨覺得果時，及五苾芻等得別解脫戒，不依表生。不善業道理亦應然，雖不動身亦不發語而無有表。但有無表，業道亦成。此有何違？如何經主乃作難言：欲無無表離表而生。三述正解。眾賢論主不許斯解，故作是言：然彼得果、五苾芻等，先加行時必定有表，相續乃至得果、入道，依此表業發別解脫。餘仙意憤、布灑他時，不善業道依表而起，理亦應爾。仙如前說，義等教他。於加行時，或由意憤身、語必變，或由呪詛必動身、語。若有身表從身表生，若有語表從語表起，此據加行必有表業，非據根本。故前論說義等教他。布灑他時得誑語者，謂不清淨詐入僧中坐現威儀，從身表業發語無表。或有所說，從語表業發語無表。此謂先表，餘例應思。言先表者，或由先時有表相續不斷，乃至發得無表，如得善戒及布灑他等。或雖根本無有表業，先加行位必有表故，如仙意憤及遣殺等。《正理論》意欲界無表必依表生，或於根本必有表業，或於加行必有表業。隨其所應，於兩位中必有表故，故說無表必依表生，非要根本言定有表。若不爾者，遣使殺等根本成時，即有何表耶？若作斯解，善順難詞：欲無無表離表而生。我意本然，難詞虛設。若謂根本必有表故，而作難云欲無無表離表而生者，遣使殺等根本成時，即有何表耶？俱舍師破云：於汝宗中有餘師意，有欲無表離表而生，如得果時五苾芻等，及仙意憤、布灑他等，以不動身、不發語故。我難彼師故作是說：欲無無表離表而生。以理而言，隨於加行、根本兩位必有表業能生無表。正理論師不能為彼釋通妨難，順我難詞。又解：汝宗本計仙人意憤及布灑他無表業，以不動身、不發語故。正理論師為難所逼，推作餘師反符我難。問：論主若以此文欲無無表離表而生為其正者，何前文十種得戒中云「別解律儀非必定依表業而發。」解云：前文敘餘師義，後文依宗正述。又解：亦不相違。彼言非必定依表業發者，非必定依自類表發，顯互發也。問：若言欲無無表離表而生，何故前文言「七善業道若從受生必皆具二，謂表、無表，受生尸羅必依表故。」既言受生，明知得果五苾芻等，不從受生、非依表發，與此相違。解云：前文敘餘師義，後文據正義難。又解：亦不相違。佛及獨覺并及五苾芻得別解脫，要期受故，受生類故，亦名受生。又解：此後文言欲無無表離表而生者，通據加行、根本兩位必有表業能生無表。若據根本，亦有無表離表而生。若不爾者，遣使殺等根本成時有何表耶？若作此解，善順前文十種得戒中非必定依表業而發，亦順七善業道非受生者不從表起。總而言之，於十種得戒中及七善業道中并此後文皆作兩解：或說欲界無表有非表生，或說欲界無表皆依表起。

Regarding "If [there is] no movement of the body ... one should make an effort": The author of the treatise raises a challenge. If that rishi and [the person] at the time of poṣadha neither move their body nor issue speech, [yet] in the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation, how could this killing and false speech constitute courses of karma? In the face of such a challenge, one should make an effort to seek an explanation. The rescue in Nyāyānusāra 42 states: "However, I shall first explain the time of poṣadha. Just as by moving the body one can indicate the meaning of speech and produce a vocal course of karma, if without the body moving one can indicate the meaning of speech, the course of karma also arises. When the precepts are being recited, if someone who has committed a transgression remains silent to indicate purity and causes the assembly to understand so, how could the course of karma of false speech not arise? As for the rishi's mental rage, its meaning is equivalent to instigating another: because his mind has no regard for sentient beings, non-humans respect him, know he has an evil mind, and move their bodies to commit killing; thus he generates the course of karma. By what revelation does the rishi cause the spirits to know his mind? Due to his mental rage, his bodily and vocal [expressions] inevitably change; or due to incantations, he inevitably moves his body and speech." Other masters say: It is not the case that in the desire realm all non-revelation arises depending on revelation—just as when five bhikṣus and others attained the fruit, they attained the prātimokṣa vows. The unwholesome should also be like this. However, previously they definitely had revelation; the rest should also be like this. The rishi is as explained before. As for acquiring false speech at the time of poṣadha, it refers to one who is impure deceitfully entering the Saṃgha, sitting and displaying decorum; or there is something spoken: this refers to a prior revelation; the rest should be understood by analogy. Explanation: From "However, I ..." down to "inevitably moves his body and speech", Saṃghabhadra explains the time of poṣadha and the rishi's mental rage constituting the two courses of karma. Second, recounting the divergent opinion: "Other masters say: It is not the case that in the desire realm all non-revelation arises depending on revelation." Among the ten ways of acquiring vows explained previously, as when the Buddha and pratyekabuddhas attained the fruit, and when the five bhikṣus and others attained the prātimokṣa vows, [their non-revelations] did not arise depending on revelation. In principle, unwholesome courses of karma should also be like this: although there is no movement of the body and no issuing of speech so that there is no revelation, there is solely non-revelation and the course of karma is also established. What contradiction is there in this? Why does the master of the sūtras raise the challenge: "In the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation"? Third, stating the correct explanation: Saṃghabhadra, the author of the treatise, does not accept this explanation, and therefore states: "However, for those who attained the fruit, the five bhikṣus, and so on, previously at the preliminary stage there definitely was revelation; continuing up to attaining the fruit and entering the path, based on this revelatory karma they brought forth the prātimokṣa [vows]. For the remaining rishi's mental rage and the time of poṣadha, that unwholesome courses of karma arise depending on revelation should also, in principle, be like this. The rishi is as explained before, with a meaning equivalent to instigating another: at the preliminary stage, either due to mental rage his bodily and vocal [expressions] inevitably changed, or due to incantations he inevitably moved his body and speech. If there is bodily revelation, it arises from bodily revelation; if there is vocal revelation, it arises from vocal revelation. This is stated in terms of the preliminary stage definitely having revelatory karma, not in terms of the culmination. Therefore the previous treatise says its meaning is equivalent to instigating another. As for acquiring false speech at the time of poṣadha, it refers to one who is impure deceitfully entering the Saṃgha, sitting and displaying decorum—from bodily revelatory karma bringing forth vocal non-revelation; or there is something spoken—from vocal revelatory karma bringing forth vocal non-revelation. This refers to a prior revelation; the rest should be considered by analogy." When speaking of "prior revelation", it may be that due to a prior revelation continuing uninterruptedly, it finally brings forth non-revelation, as in attaining wholesome vows, poṣadha, and so on; or, although at the culmination there is no revelatory karma, at the prior preliminary stage there definitely is revelation, as in the rishi's mental rage, sending someone to kill, and so on. The intention of the Nyāyānusāra is that non-revelation in the desire realm definitely arises depending on revelation: either at the culmination there definitely is revelatory karma, or at the preliminary stage there definitely is revelatory karma. As appropriate, because there definitely is revelation in one of the two stages, it is therefore said that non-revelation definitely arises depending on revelation; it is not required to say that there is definitely revelation at the culmination. If it were not so, when sending someone to kill and the like culminates, what revelation would there be? If one forms this explanation, it accords well with the words of the challenge: "In the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation. My original meaning was such; the words of the challenge were posed in vain." If one maintains that there must be revelation at the culmination and thus raises the challenge, "In the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation," then when sending someone to kill and the like culminates, what revelation would there be? The Kośa master refutes this, saying: In your school, there is the opinion of other masters that some desire-realm non-revelations arise apart from revelation, as with the five bhikṣus and others when attaining the fruit, and with the rishi's mental rage, poṣadha, and so on, because they do not move their bodies or issue speech. It was to challenge those masters that I made this statement: "In the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation." Reasonably speaking, in either the preliminary or the culmination stage, there must be revelatory karma that can produce non-revelation. The master of the Nyāyānusāra was unable to resolve the difficulty for them, and [his answer actually] accords with the words of my challenge. Another explanation: Your school's original tenet was that the rishi's mental rage and poṣadha are non-revelatory karma because they do not move the body or issue speech. Pressed by the challenge, the master of the Nyāyānusāra attributed this to "other masters", which conversely tallies with my challenge. Question: If the author of the treatise takes this text's "in the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation" as the correct view, why does the earlier text on the ten ways of acquiring vows state: "The prātimokṣa restraint does not definitely arise depending on revelatory karma"? Explanation: The earlier text recounted the doctrine of other masters, whereas the later text correctly states [it] according to the school. Another explanation: Nor are they contradictory. His statement that it does not definitely arise depending on revelatory karma means that it does not definitely arise depending on revelation of its own class, revealing mutual generation. Question: If one says that in the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation, why does the earlier text say: "If the seven wholesome courses of karma arise from formal taking, they definitely possess both, namely revelation and non-revelation, because śīla that arises from taking definitely depends on revelation"? Since it says "arising from formal taking", we clearly know that the five bhikṣus and others when attaining the fruit do not arise from taking and do not arise depending on revelation, which contradicts this. Explanation: The earlier text recounted the doctrine of other masters, whereas the later text challenges on the basis of the correct doctrine. Another explanation: Nor are they contradictory. When the Buddha, pratyekabuddhas, and the five bhikṣus attain the prātimokṣa, because of a solemn undertaking and because it belongs to the class of arising from formal taking, it is also termed "arising from formal taking". Another explanation: This later text's statement that in the desire realm there is no non-revelation that arises apart from revelation comprehensively covers both the preliminary and the culmination stages, where there definitely is revelatory karma capable of producing non-revelation. If judged by the culmination, there is also non-revelation that arises apart from revelation. If it were not so, when sending someone to kill and the like culminates, what revelation would there be? If one forms this explanation, it accords well with the earlier text's "among the ten ways of acquiring vows, it does not definitely arise depending on revelatory karma", and it also accords with [the statement that] among the seven wholesome courses of karma, those not arising from formal taking do not arise from revelation. In summary, both in the ten ways of acquiring vows, in the seven wholesome courses of karma, and in this later text, two explanations are made: either it is said that in the desire realm there are non-revelations not produced from revelation, or it is said that in the desire realm all non-revelations arise depending on revelation.