俱舍論記 16.96

16.96

「偷盜等三眾具處起」者，釋眾具處起，是第二節。偷盜、邪行、貪，於眾具處起。若情、非情，俱是他人受用具者，皆名眾具。若偷盜，通情、非情處起，如盜畜等於情處起，如盜金等非情處起。若邪行，唯於有情處起。若貪，通情、非情處起。過俱重故，皆名業道。而下論言「惡欲他財貪」者，且據非情以說，理實亦通有情，不同瞋恚唯有情起名為業道。問：何故偷盜等三言眾具處起，不言有情、名色等處起？解云：盜他物等、婬他妻等、貪他財等，皆是他人受用具故，故於眾具處起。盜、貪亦通非情處起，不言有情處起。邪行雖復唯於有情，眾具勝故存眾具名。又盜等三制罪義邊皆待有情，眾具勝故立眾具名。盜等唯眾具處起，名色通非眾具，不言名色處起、盜等眾具處起；名身等三體非具故，亦不言名等處起。

"Three, stealing and so on, arise with respect to articles of utility": this explains their arising with respect to articles of utility, which is the second section. Stealing, sexual misconduct, and covetousness arise with respect to articles of utility. Whether sentient or insentient, whatever serves as an article of enjoyment for another is termed an 'article of utility'. Stealing arises with respect to both sentient and insentient [bases], as when stealing livestock arises with respect to a sentient [basis], or stealing gold and the like arises with respect to an insentient [basis]. Sexual misconduct arises solely with respect to sentient beings. Covetousness arises with respect to both sentient and insentient [bases]. Because their faults are all grave, they are all called paths of karma. And where the treatise below says "covetousness is the evil desire for another's wealth," it speaks merely in terms of insentient things; in actual principle it also extends to sentient beings, unlike malice, which is called a path of karma solely when arising with respect to sentient beings. Question: Why do the three, stealing and so on, say they arise with respect to articles of utility, rather than saying they arise with respect to sentient beings, name-and-form, and so forth? Explanation: Stealing another's goods, debauching another's wife, and coveting another's wealth are all articles of enjoyment for another; hence they arise with respect to articles of utility. Stealing and covetousness also extend to arising with respect to insentient things, so it is not said that they arise with respect to sentient beings. Although sexual misconduct is indeed solely with respect to sentient beings, the name 'articles of utility' is retained because [the category of] articles of utility is dominant. Moreover, from the standpoint of establishing the fault, all three—stealing and the rest—depend on sentient beings; because articles of utility are dominant, the name 'articles of utility' is established. Stealing and so on arise solely with respect to articles of utility, whereas name-and-form extends to what are not articles of utility; thus it is not said that they arise with respect to name-and-form. Stealing and so on arise with respect to articles of utility; because the substances of the three—the group of names and so forth—are not articles of utility, it is also not said that they arise with respect to names and so forth.