俱舍論記 17.79

17.79

「八俱轉者至得五支等」者，謂此正見相應意識現在前時，得五支遠離處中業道。等，謂等取六，謂善五識現在前時，得六支遠離處中業道。應知前七不善者，若不律儀初念，名為業道。故此論十四明不律儀眾名中云「根本所攝，故名業道。若處中不善，根本成時亦名業道，如殺生等。」此論具說前七善者，若律儀初念名為業道，故前文言唯初念表、無表名別解業道。若處中善，初念亦名業道，如前處中引《婆沙》說。又此四類有麁品故，是業道攝。又此四類有無表故，是業道攝。豈有無表不成業道？不善業道思俱轉中，且據處中業道，不據不律儀業道。以處中不善有一、二等別，得差別增數故，以明偏約彼說。以不律儀得必具七，無一、二等別，得不同故，不約彼明。泰法師等解云：「處中殺等由具緣故方成業道。不律儀不說具緣，雖是殺等不律儀，非是殺等不善業道。故不善思俱轉中，唯約處中，不約不律儀說。」今謂不然。不善業道有其二種：一得不律儀名為業道，遍有情故，不說具緣；二得處中不善名為業道，望別人故，故說具緣。又諸論中說不律儀名為業道，文非一故，豈以思俱轉中不別說故證非業道？俱轉之中且約一相差別以論，非遍具說。亦可後念言非業道，何容初念非業道耶？若言雖是殺等不律儀，非是殺等不善業道。亦可善律儀雖是不殺等律儀，非是不殺等善業道。此既不然，彼云何爾？此中不明殺與不殺，但明業道與思俱轉。既不律儀名為業道，亦可說為與思俱轉。或可八俱轉中亦攝不律儀業道。誰言不攝？泰法師等若作此解，非但違理亦違論文。復有古德云：處中善業非是業道。彼謂處中非麁品收故。彼亦不然。如殺生等雖是處中，麁品攝故名為業道。處中善業何妨麁品亦業道攝？迷執處中謂非麁品，深成自誤。《婆沙》亦說「處中善業名業道故。」如前具引。復有古德云：不善中約處中業明思俱轉，不明不律儀。善業道中唯約律儀，不約處中明思俱轉者，互顯故然。此亦不然。善業道中說處中故。或惡業道八俱轉中亦攝不律儀故。

"Eight co-arising: up to acquiring five factors, etc.": this means that when this mental consciousness associated with right view is present, one acquires the intermediate path of action consisting of the abstention from five factors. 'Etc.' includes six, meaning that when the wholesome five consciousnesses are present, one acquires the intermediate path of action consisting of the abstention from six factors. One should know that regarding the first seven unwholesome ones, the initial moment of non-discipline is called a path of action. Therefore, in fascicle fourteen of this treatise, when explaining the various names for non-discipline, it says: 'Because they are subsumed under the principal [act], they are called paths of action. In the case of intermediate unwholesome [actions], when the principal [act] is completed, it is also called a path of action, such as killing living beings, etc.' This treatise fully explains that regarding the first seven wholesome ones, the initial moment of discipline is called a path of action; hence the earlier text states that only the manifestation and non-manifestation of the initial moment are called paths of action of individual emancipation. In the case of intermediate wholesome [actions], the initial moment is also called a path of action, as cited earlier regarding intermediate [actions] from the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. Furthermore, because these four categories include gross forms, they are subsumed under paths of action. Moreover, because these four categories have non-manifestation, they are subsumed under paths of action. How could there be non-manifestation that does not constitute a path of action? Among unwholesome paths of action co-arising with volition, it is temporarily based on intermediate paths of action, not on the paths of action of non-discipline. Because intermediate unwholesome [actions] have distinctions of one, two, etc., having a distinctive increase in number, the explanation is given specifically in reference to them. Because the acquisition of non-discipline necessarily includes all seven and lacks distinctions of one, two, etc., its acquisition being different, it is not explained in reference to it. Master Tai and others explained: 'Intermediate killing, etc., become paths of action only through having complete conditions. Non-discipline is not said to have complete conditions; although it is the non-discipline of killing, etc., it is not the unwholesome path of action of killing, etc. Therefore, among unwholesome [actions] co-arising with volition, it is explained solely in reference to the intermediate, not to non-discipline.' Now I say this is not so. Unwholesome paths of action are of two kinds: first, acquiring non-discipline is called a path of action, and because it extends over all sentient beings, having complete conditions is not mentioned; second, acquiring intermediate unwholesome [action] is called a path of action, and because it is directed toward specific individuals, having complete conditions is mentioned. Moreover, in various treatises non-discipline is called a path of action in more than one passage; how could its not being separately mentioned in [the section on] co-arising with volition prove that it is not a path of action? In co-arising, the discussion is based provisionally on a single distinctive aspect, not an exhaustive account. It could also be said that subsequent moments are not paths of action; how could the initial moment not be a path of action? If it is said that although it is the non-discipline of killing, etc., it is not the unwholesome path of action of killing, etc., then one could also say that although wholesome discipline is the discipline of non-killing, etc., it is not the wholesome path of action of non-killing, etc. Since the latter is not so, how could the former be thus? Here it is not clarifying killing and non-killing, but merely clarifying paths of action co-arising with volition. Since non-discipline is called a path of action, it can also be said to co-arise with volition. Or it may be that among the eight co-arising, paths of action of non-discipline are also subsumed. Who says they are not subsumed? If Master Tai and others make this interpretation, it not only violates reason but also contradicts the text of the treatise. Furthermore, another ancient master said: 'Intermediate wholesome karma is not a path of action.' He thought that the intermediate is not included within the gross form. He too is mistaken. Just as killing living beings, etc., although intermediate, are called paths of action because they are subsumed under gross forms, what is to prevent intermediate wholesome karma from being gross forms and also subsumed under paths of action? Blindly clinging to the intermediate and deeming it not to be a gross form deeply results in self-delusion. The *Mahāvibhāṣā* also states that intermediate wholesome karma is called a path of action, as cited in full above. Furthermore, another ancient master said: 'Among the unwholesome, co-arising with volition is explained in reference to intermediate karma, not to non-discipline; whereas among wholesome paths of action, co-arising with volition is explained solely in reference to discipline, not to the intermediate, because they mutually illuminate one another.' This too is incorrect, because intermediate [karma] is indeed mentioned among wholesome paths of action, or because non-discipline is also subsumed among the eight co-arising of unwholesome paths of action.