俱舍論記 16.95

16.95

「謂殺等三有情處起」者，釋有情處起，是第一節。謂殺生、麁語、嗔恚三種於有情處起。雖麁語、嗔恚亦於非情處起，以過輕故不成業道。問：何故殺等三種言有情處起，不言眾具、名色、名等處起？解云：為殺有情、為罵有情、為嗔有情，唯情過重，故有情處起。殺等三種唯於有情，眾具、名色亦通非情，不言眾具、名色處起。殺等於總有情，名等三種雖有情攝，非總有情，故亦不言名等處起。又解：名等非可殺，故為他侵陵，意欲罵彼故。語罵有情非罵名等，意嗔有情非嗔名等。設復有人嗔罵名等，是有情攝故，不說言名等處起。雖麁語起亦依名等，同誑等三託境勝依，故就境說不約依論。又解：麁語起時雖依名等，恐謂依外，故說有情。又發麁語不假巧言。故《顯宗》二十二云「麁語雖依名身等起，恐謂唯依外此業道亦成，故說唯依有情處起。又發麁語不假飾詞，故不說依名身等起。」又解：誑語等起必依名等；有麁語起不依名等，如叱吒等。故《正理》第一云「此語表業復有二種，謂依名起及不待名起。」准此論文，故知有麁惡語不依名等，由不定故，不說麁語依名等起。

"Namely, the three such as killing arise in the base of sentient beings": explaining 'arising in the base of sentient beings,' which is the first clause. That is, the three kinds—taking life, harsh speech, and ill-will—arise in the base of sentient beings. Although harsh speech and ill-will also arise regarding non-sentient things, because the fault is minor, they do not constitute paths of action. Question: Why are the three kinds such as killing said to arise in the base of sentient beings, rather than in the base of requisites, name-and-form, or names and the like? The explanation is: In order to kill sentient beings, revile sentient beings, or bear ill-will toward sentient beings, it is solely regarding sentient beings that the fault is grave; therefore, they arise in the base of sentient beings. The three kinds such as killing apply solely to sentient beings, whereas requisites and name-and-form also extend to non-sentient things, so they are not said to arise in the base of requisites or name-and-form. Killing and the rest are directed toward the totality of sentient beings; although the three kinds such as names are included within sentient beings, they are not the totality of sentient beings, so they are also not said to arise in the base of names and the like. Another explanation: Names and the like cannot be killed; therefore, because one is assaulted by another, one intends to revile them, so one's speech reviles the sentient being, not reviling names and the like, and one's mind bears ill-will toward the sentient being, not toward names and the like. Even if someone bears ill-will toward or reviles names and the like, since they are included within sentient beings, they are not said to arise in the base of names and the like. Although harsh speech also arises depending on names and the like, like the three such as falsehood it relies on the predominant basis of the object; therefore, it is spoken in terms of the object, not in terms of the basis. Another explanation: Although harsh speech arises depending on names and the like, for fear that it might be thought to depend on external things, it is said to be sentient beings. Furthermore, uttering harsh speech does not require skillful words. Thus *Samayapradīpikā*, fascicle 22, states: "Although harsh speech arises based on name-bodies and the like, for fear that it might be thought that this path of action is also accomplished solely based on external things, it is said to arise solely in the base of sentient beings. Furthermore, uttering harsh speech does not require ornate words, so it is not said to arise based on name-bodies and the like." Another explanation: The arising of false speech and the like necessarily depends on names and the like; yet there is harsh speech that arises without depending on names and the like, such as scolding and shouting. Thus *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 1, states: "This vocal manifest action is again of two kinds, namely arising dependent on names and arising without awaiting names." According to this textual passage, we know that there is harsh speech that does not depend on names and the like; because it is indeterminate, harsh speech is not said to arise based on names and the like.