俱舍論記 19.172

19.172

「論曰至故頌不說」者，唯欲界繫一切五部貪、瞋及不善癡，不善根攝。引證可知。言不善根者，唯不善煩惱為不善法根，立不善根。餘則不爾，但說此三。所餘煩惱非不善根，義准已成，故頌不說。《婆沙》一百一十二廢立云「又此三種具足五義，謂通五部、遍在六識，是隨眠性，能起麁惡身業、語業，作斷善根牢強加行，是故獨立為不善根。通五部者，遮五見、疑。遍六識者，遮其諸慢。隨眠性者，遮纏垢等。能起麁惡身業、語業，作斷善根牢強加行者，示現根義。又此五義遮一切法成立根義，謂不染污法有遍六識，無餘四義。染污色蘊全無五義。染污受蘊、想蘊及餘煩惱纏垢所餘相應染污行蘊，雖通五部亦遍六識，而非隨眠性。雖能起麁惡身、語二業，而非斷善牢強加行。有染污不相應行蘊，雖通五部，無餘四義。染污識蘊中，眼等五識全無五義。意識雖通五部亦能起麁惡身業、語業，而無餘三義。十煩惱中，五見及疑有隨眠性，無餘四義。慢通五部，是隨眠性，能起麁惡身業、語業，無餘二義。於十纏中，惛沈、掉舉、無慚、無愧，雖通五部亦遍六識，而非隨眠性；雖起麁惡身業、語業，而非斷善牢強加行。睡眠一種，雖通五部，無餘四義。所餘五纏，雖起麁惡身、語二業，無餘四義。六煩惱垢，雖亦有時能起麁惡身、語二業，無餘四義。唯貪、瞋、癡具足五義，非所餘法，是故獨立為不善根。」准此《婆沙》文，染污睡眠不發身、語業，准此善眠不發業。無覆睡眠，《婆沙》、《正理》各有兩說，一說發業、一說不發業，其下十纏當具引釋。又准此文，惡作發身、語業。問：惡作與憂根相應法離欲捨，若發得別解脫戒，此戒豈有離欲捨耶？解云：惡作、憂根但能發處中善不善身、語業，不能發別解脫戒，故無有妨。惡作追悔往事，憂根別有所憂，正發戒時無此相故。又准此文，六垢發業。

[On the phrase] “The Treatise says: … therefore the verse does not state [this]”: Only greed, hatred, and unwholesome delusion bound to the desire realm across all five classes are subsumed under the unwholesome roots. The cited scriptural proof may be understood [from the root text]. Regarding the words “unwholesome roots” (akuśala-mūla): only unwholesome afflictions serve as roots for unwholesome dharmas, establishing [them as] unwholesome roots. Others do not do so; only these three are stated. The remaining afflictions are not unwholesome roots, which is already established by logical implication; hence the verse does not mention them. The Mahāvibhāṣā (fascicle 112) explains the rationale for establishing and eliminating [candidates], stating: “Furthermore, these three types are complete with five meanings: namely, they permeate the five classes, are pervasive throughout the six consciousnesses, are of the nature of dormant afflictions (anuśaya), are capable of producing coarse and evil bodily karma and vocal karma, and serve as firm preparatory efforts (prayoga) that sever the wholesome roots. Therefore, they alone are established as unwholesome roots. ‘Permeating the five classes’ excludes the five views and doubt. ‘Pervasive throughout the six consciousnesses’ excludes the various conceits (māna). ‘Being of the nature of dormant afflictions’ excludes the entanglements (paryavasthāna), stains (mala), and so on. ‘Capable of producing coarse and evil bodily karma and vocal karma, and serving as firm preparatory efforts that sever the wholesome roots’ manifests the meaning of ‘root’. Furthermore, these five meanings exclude all [other] dharmas and establish the meaning of ‘root’: namely, undefiled dharmas may be pervasive throughout the six consciousnesses, but lack the remaining four meanings. Defiled form aggregate completely lacks all five meanings. Defiled feeling aggregate, perception aggregate, and the other defiled formations aggregates associated with the remaining afflictions, entanglements, and stains, although permeating the five classes and pervasive throughout the six consciousnesses, are not of the nature of dormant afflictions; although capable of producing coarse and evil bodily and vocal karmas, they are not firm preparatory efforts that sever wholesome roots. There are defiled formations aggregates dissociated from thought (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) which, although permeating the five classes, lack the remaining four meanings. Among the defiled consciousness aggregate, the five consciousnesses such as the eye-[consciousness] completely lack the five meanings. Mental consciousness, although permeating the five classes and capable of producing coarse and evil bodily and vocal karmas, lacks the other three meanings. Among the ten afflictions, the five views and doubt are of the nature of dormant afflictions, but lack the remaining four meanings. Conceit permeates the five classes, is of the nature of dormant afflictions, and can produce coarse and evil bodily and vocal karmas, but lacks the other two meanings. Among the ten entanglements, torpor, restlessness, lack of shame, and lack of conscience, although permeating the five classes and pervasive throughout the six consciousnesses, are not of the nature of dormant afflictions; although they produce coarse and evil bodily and vocal karmas, they are not firm preparatory efforts that sever wholesome roots. Sleep alone, although permeating the five classes, lacks the other four meanings. The remaining five entanglements, although producing coarse and evil bodily and vocal karmas, lack the other four meanings. The six defilement-stains, although at times capable of producing coarse and evil bodily and vocal karmas, lack the other four meanings. Only greed, hatred, and delusion are complete with the five meanings, not any other dharma; therefore they alone are established as the unwholesome roots.” According to this text of the Mahāvibhāṣā, defiled sleep does not issue bodily or vocal karma; by extension, wholesome sleep does not issue karma either. Regarding non-obscured (anivṛta) sleep, the Mahāvibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra each present two explanations: one says it issues karma, while the other says it does not. The ten entanglements below will cite and explain this fully. Moreover, according to this text, regret (kaukṛtya) issues bodily and vocal karma. Question: Regret and the dharma associated with the faculty of sorrow (daurmanasya) are abandoned upon detachment [from the desire realm]. If it issues and obtains the Prātimokṣa vows, how could these vows be abandoned upon detachment? Solution: Regret and the faculty of sorrow can only issue neutral wholesome or unwholesome bodily and vocal karma; they cannot issue the Prātimokṣa vows. Thus there is no contradiction. Regret looks back on past deeds with remorse, and the faculty of sorrow grieves over something specific; at the precise moment of taking vows, these characteristics are absent. Furthermore, according to this text, the six stains issue karma.