俱舍論記 19.121

19.121

「此不決定至唯修所斷」者，答。此不決定，於七慢中或有修所斷於未斷位聖容現行，謂除慢類及與我慢。所餘諸慢於此慢中或有修所斷，於未斷位而聖定不行，謂慢類我慢。此不行因次後當辨。寄喻來況，如殺生纏是修所斷，而諸聖者必不現行。殺生纏者，顯由此惑發起故思斷眾生命。頌說「等」言，顯盜、婬、誑纏，無有愛全不起，有愛一分不起。問：無有名何法？答：謂三界非常滅相，名為無有。於此非常貪求，名無有愛。若泛說三界非常，諸無有愛通見、修斷。此中意說於三界中，眾同分上非常滅相名為無有。願我死後斷壞無有，於無有貪名無有愛。聖於此愛全不起故，唯修斷故，所以但取緣眾同分無常貪愛名無有愛。故《婆沙》二十七云「無有者，謂眾同分無常，緣此愛名無有愛。是故此愛唯修所斷，以眾同分唯修所斷故。」又《正理》四十七云「豈不見所斷亦有無常無有愛，何緣唯修所斷？實亦見斷，且隨經說。謂契經中說有三愛，欲愛、有愛、無有愛三。於此經中說無有愛，取緣眾同分無常為境者，貪愛異熟相續斷故。如契經言：一類苦逼，作如是念：願我死後斷壞無有，無病樂哉。今且據斯說唯修斷，非見所斷無無有愛（已上論文）。」又解：三界五陰無常滅相，於此貪求名無有愛。此即總說諸無有愛，然意唯取緣眾同分無常貪求名無有愛。聖於此愛全不起故，唯修斷故。故《婆沙》云「顯此論者前來成立隨契經義，說無有愛唯修所斷。今隨實義，顯無有愛通二所斷，三界無常通二斷故。」以此故知，三界無常諸無有愛是總說也。於當有身而起愛故，名為有愛。言一分者，謂異生時發願當為藹羅筏拏大龍王等。《正理》云「等言為顯阿素洛王、北俱盧洲、無想天等（已上論文）。」藹羅筏拏，是水名。水中龍象從水為名，即是帝釋所乘龍象王也。故《正理》七十五說「藹羅筏拏大象王，是三十三天所乘象王（已上論文）。」聖人雖於善趣有身起愛，於惡趣龍王等有愛一分未斷不起，以聖不愛惡趣身故。故名有愛一分。此殺、盜、婬、誑諸纏，此諸有愛、無有愛，一切皆唯緣修所斷法，故唯修所斷。見所斷法雖亦能緣修所斷法，而非唯故，非唯修斷。殺、盜、婬纏，緣修所斷身業起。誑纏，緣修所斷語業起。無有愛，緣修所斷眾同分上無常法起。有愛一分，緣修所斷當有身起。

"This is not definitive [...] only abandoned by cultivation": This is the answer. This is not definitive: among the seven prides, there are those abandoned by cultivation that a noble one may manifest in the unabandoned state—namely, excluding the classes of pride and the pride of self. As for the other kinds of pride, among these prides there are those abandoned by cultivation which a noble one definitively never manifests in the unabandoned state—namely, the classes of pride and the pride of self. The cause of this non-manifestation will be explained next. Applying an analogy by comparison: just as the envelopment of taking life is abandoned by cultivation, yet noble ones definitively never manifest it. The "envelopment of taking life" shows that, arising from this defilement, there is deliberate intention to cut off the life of a sentient being. The verse uses the word "and so forth" to indicate the envelopments of theft, sexual misconduct, and deceit, the craving for non-existence entirely not arising, and a portion of the craving for existence not arising. Question: What dharma is called "non-existence"? Answer: It refers to the impermanent cessation-character of the three realms, which is called "non-existence." Craving after this impermanence is called "craving for non-existence." If one speaks generally of the impermanence of the three realms, all cravings for non-existence are shared between abandonment by seeing and cultivation. What is meant here is that within the three realms, the impermanent cessation-character regarding the generic similarity is called "non-existence." [Desiring,] "May I, after death, be annihilated and non-existent!"—craving for this non-existence is called "craving for non-existence." Because the noble one entirely does not give rise to this craving, and because it is abandoned only by cultivation, it is therefore uniquely taken as the craving that takes the impermanence of generic similarity as its object, which is called craving for non-existence. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 27, says: "'Non-existence' refers to the impermanence of generic similarity; craving taking this as an object is called craving for non-existence. Therefore this craving is abandoned only by cultivation, because generic similarity is abandoned only by cultivation." Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 47, says: "Is there not also an impermanent craving for non-existence that is abandoned by seeing? For what reason is it only abandoned by cultivation? In truth it is also abandoned by seeing, but for now we follow what is stated in the sūtra. That is, the sūtra speaks of three cravings: craving for sensuality, craving for existence, and craving for non-existence. When craving for non-existence is spoken of in this sūtra, it takes the impermanence of generic similarity as its object, because the continuity of maturation is cut off. As the sūtra states: 'A certain class, oppressed by suffering, forms this thought: "May I, after death, be annihilated and non-existent; how joyful to be free of affliction!"' Now we merely rely on this to say it is only abandoned by cultivation; it is not that there is no craving for non-existence abandoned by seeing (end of śāstra passage)." Another explanation: It is the impermanent cessation-character of the five aggregates of the three realms; craving after this is called craving for non-existence. This is a general statement about all cravings for non-existence, but the intention is uniquely to take the craving that takes the impermanence of generic similarity as its object and name it craving for non-existence. Because the noble one entirely does not give rise to this craving, and because it is abandoned only by cultivation. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā says: "This shows that previously this treatise-master established, following the sense of the sūtra, that craving for non-existence is abandoned only by cultivation. Now following the actual principle, it shows that craving for non-existence is shared between both kinds of abandonment, because the impermanence of the three realms is shared between both abandonments." From this it is known that the cravings for non-existence regarding the impermanence of the three realms is a general statement. Because of giving rise to craving toward a future embodiment, it is called "craving for existence." The statement "a portion" refers to making an aspiration when still an ordinary being to become the great dragon king Airāvaṇa, and so forth. The Nyāyānusāra says: "The word 'and so forth' is to show the asura kings, the Northern Kuru continent, the Asañjñisattva heaven, and so forth (end of śāstra passage)." "Airāvaṇa" is the name of a body of water. The dragon-elephant in the water takes its name from the water; it is the dragon-elephant king ridden by Śakra. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 75, says: "The great elephant king Airāvaṇa is the elephant king ridden by the Thirty-Three Gods (end of śāstra passage)." Although a noble person gives rise to craving toward embodiment in good destinies, with respect to the dragon kings of bad destinies and so forth, this one portion of craving for existence, being unabandoned, does not arise, because a noble one does not crave an embodiment in the bad destinies. Therefore it is called a portion of the craving for existence. These envelopments of taking life, theft, sexual misconduct, and deceit, and these cravings for existence and non-existence—all uniquely take dharmas abandoned by cultivation as their object; therefore they are abandoned only by cultivation. Although dharmas abandoned by seeing can also take dharmas abandoned by cultivation as their object, they do not do so uniquely, and so are not abandoned only by cultivation. The envelopments of taking life, theft, and sexual misconduct arise taking bodily karma abandoned by cultivation as their object. The envelopment of deceit arises taking vocal karma abandoned by cultivation as its object. Craving for non-existence arises taking the impermanent dharmas on generic similarity abandoned by cultivation as its object. A portion of craving for existence arises taking the future embodiment abandoned by cultivation as its object.