[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 19.18 # 俱舍論記 19.18 俱舍論記 19.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [19.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19.18) 「二俱有過至三根相應」者，重顯疑意。持業、依主二俱有過。若欲貪體即是隨眠，據持業釋，便違契經。如契經說：若有一類有情非於多時，乃至并隨眠斷，欲貪纏遣除，顯斷現行；并隨眠斷，顯斷種子。經中既說於欲貪纏能正遣除外，別說并隨眠斷，明知欲貪體非即是隨眠。引經正取并隨眠斷一句為難。餘者同文故來。若是欲貪之隨眠義，據依主釋。隨眠應是心不相應，同大眾部等。彼計隨眠是心不相應，謂諸煩惱於正起位，於自相續引起別法心不相應行蘊所攝，名為隨眠。准《宗輪論》，大眾部等說隨眠與心不相應，說不相應非但同大眾部等，亦違對法。如本論說：欲貪隨眠與喜、樂、捨三根相應。論既言欲貪隨眠三根相應，明知欲貪即是隨眠現行相應，非欲貪外有隨眠名不相應。 > Regarding "Both have faults \[...\] associated with the three faculties": this re-elucidates the intent of the doubt. Both karmadhāraya and tatpuruṣa have faults. If the entity of sensual attachment is itself the latent defilement, based on a karmadhāraya interpretation, it would contradict the sūtra. As the sūtra says: If there is a category of sentient beings who not for a long time \[...\] up to and including: abandoned along with the latent defilements; banishing the entanglement of sensual attachment indicates abandoning active manifestation; abandoning along with the latent defilements indicates abandoning the seeds. Since the sūtra speaks of properly banishing the entanglement of sensual attachment and separately speaks of abandoning along with the latent defilements, we clearly know that the entity of sensual attachment is not itself the latent defilement. The citation of the sūtra primarily takes the clause "abandoned along with the latent defilements" to formulate the objection; the rest appears because it is the same text. If it means the latent defilement of sensual attachment, based on a tatpuruṣa interpretation, then the latent defilement would be citta-viprayukta (unassociated with mind), agreeing with the Mahāsāṃghika and others. They posit that the latent defilement is unassociated with mind, stating that when afflictions are actively arising, they induce within their own continuum a distinct dharma subsumed under the saṃskāra-skandha that is unassociated with mind, called a latent defilement. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Mahāsāṃghika and others state that the latent defilement is unassociated with mind. Stating that it is unassociated not only agrees with the Mahāsāṃghika and others, but also contradicts the Abhidharma. As the fundamental treatise says: the latent defilement of sensual attachment is associated with three faculties: joy (saumanasya), pleasure (sukha), and equanimity (upekṣā). Since the treatise says the latent defilement of sensual attachment is associated with three faculties, we clearly know that sensual attachment is itself the latent defilement, actively manifest and associated, and there is no latent defilement apart from sensual attachment called unassociated. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 19.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19.17) - [Next: 19.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19.19) - [Up: 19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.19.18) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19.30) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19.18) · Pramāṇa