俱舍論記 16.92

16.92

「頌曰至許所餘由三」者，頌文總有四節究竟業道，初兩句為一節，次兩句為第二節，次一句為第三節，後一句為第四節。言所餘者，謂前七業道餘，即是虛誑語、離間語、雜穢語。言究竟者，是成辨義、是終了義，謂惡業道由彼三根成辨、終了故，與加行三根不同。問：此言究竟，為據因等起說？為據剎那等起？解云：此據近因等起，以決定故。非剎那等起，以不定故。如遣使殺等剎那等起，即通三性，心不定故，非彼究竟。若因等起，心性即決定，以決定故，從彼究竟。又解：此中據剎那等起，非因等起。如貪、瞋等必是剎那等起，餘准應知亦約剎那等起。貪、瞋不善根與貪、嗔業道同一剎那，雖無別體，根、道義別，故得說根究竟業道。遣使殺等六惡業道，或時自殺後方死等剎那等起，亦通餘心所作究竟，此文且據自作者說。又解：通據因等起及剎那等起。若遣使殺等六惡業道，或時自作後方死等，唯由近因等起三根究竟，非剎那等起，以剎那等起心不定故容起餘心，非由餘心究竟此故。若貪、嗔、邪見，唯由剎那等起三根究竟，非因等起。若自行殺等七惡業，具由二種，或因等起、或剎那等起。於三解中，初解非理，貪等定由剎那等起；後之二解俱可為正。

"The verse states: … the remaining are accepted as being through three": The text of the verse has four clauses in total concerning the culmination of paths of action: the first two lines constitute the first clause, the next two lines the second clause, the next line the third clause, and the final line the fourth clause. When it says "the remaining," it refers to the remainder of the first seven paths of action, namely false speech, divisive speech, and senseless speech. "Culmination" means accomplishment, meaning final completion; that is, the unwholesome paths of action are accomplished and brought to final completion by those three roots, which is therefore different from the three roots of the preparatory stage. Question: When speaking of culmination here, is it spoken on the basis of the motivating origination (hetu-samutthāna), or on the basis of the instantaneous origination (tatkṣaṇa-samutthāna)? The explanation is: This is based on the proximate motivating origination, because it is determinate; it is not based on the instantaneous origination, because it is indeterminate. As in the case of instigating an agent to kill, the instantaneous origination encompasses the three moral natures and the mind is indeterminate, so it is not the culmination by that. If it is the motivating origination, the moral nature of the mind is determinate, and because it is determinate, culmination occurs through it. Another explanation: Here it is based on the instantaneous origination, not the motivating origination. Just as covetousness, ill-will, and the like are necessarily instantaneous origination, the rest should be understood accordingly as also being in terms of instantaneous origination. The unwholesome roots of covetousness and ill-will are of the same thought-moment as the paths of action of covetousness and ill-will; although they have no separate entity, the meanings of 'root' and 'path' are distinct, so the root can be said to bring the path of action to culmination. In the six unwholesome paths of action such as instigating an agent to kill, or killing personally where [the victim] dies later, the instantaneous origination may also encompass what is performed by other mental states to reach culmination; this text is spoken for the time being on the basis of personal action. Another explanation: It encompasses both motivating origination and instantaneous origination. In the six unwholesome paths of action such as instigating an agent to kill, or killing personally where [the victim] dies later, they are brought to culmination solely by the proximate motivating origination of the three roots, not by the instantaneous origination, because the mind of instantaneous origination is indeterminate and can give rise to other mental states, and culmination does not occur through those other mental states. In the case of covetousness, ill-will, and wrong view, they are brought to culmination solely by the instantaneous origination of the three roots, not by motivating origination. In the case of performing the seven unwholesome actions such as killing personally, they possess both kinds, either by motivating origination or by instantaneous origination. Among the three explanations, the first is unreasonable, as covetousness and the rest are definitely through instantaneous origination; the latter two explanations may both be taken as correct.