俱舍論記 2.86

2.86

「有說聲屬至緣擊發聲」者，答。有兩說，此即初師。有說：聲屬第三傳故，雖遠展轉由彼業生，不能親感，而非異熟。謂業為第一傳，從業生大種為第二傳，從大種發聲為第三傳。理亦應有第四、第五傳而不說者，從異熟大種生聲尚非異熟，從長養、等流生聲理在不疑，故不別說。又解：應立量。即聲非異熟，屬第三傳故，如善惡身受。問：若聲從業、大種生故，此四大種即是異熟。為是何等異熟大種生此聲耶？解云：先有異熟大種獨住，若相擊時即便生聲，不相擊時但有大種。問：若爾，應有現在大種，無所造色。解云：許亦無失。故《正理》二十解大種望所造色非俱有因中云「謂有成就諸所造色非四大種，或有成就能造大種非所造色。」解云：謂聖生無色、成下無漏戒、不成能造大。及在欲、色，成過、未定共戒，不成能造大。在欲，第二念已去成過、現戒，非成過去能造大。若有初受別解脫戒，初念有等流四大，懸造未來當生無表。彼大種現在成就，所造無表仍住未來，無前得故，仍未成就。如是等類，是謂成就大種非所造色。准彼論文，故知。亦有成能造大非所造色。問：若爾，即與《婆沙》相違。故《婆沙》一百三十二云「若成就現在大種，彼現在所造色耶？答：如是。設成就現在所造色，彼現在大種耶？答：如是。以非現在大種無果故，亦非現在所造色無因故。」《婆沙》既云以非現在大種無果故，明知現在大種皆有所造色果，無獨住大。解云：論意各別，無勞會釋。或可亦不相違。《婆沙》從多分說。若不爾者，如受戒時初念懸造未來世戒，豈得成彼未來戒耶？問：等流大種懸造當戒，可有現在獨住大種。異熟大種非是懸造，應無現在獨住大種。解云；雖義不同，大種類故。等流既容現在獨住，異熟容有，何理能遮？又解：現在無有異熟大種，無所造色，前引《婆沙》極分明故。既言以非現在大種無果故，故知無有現大獨住。既言以非現在所造色無因故，故知無有現所造色獨住。應知後念無表，望現大種雖無生因，有依因故。問：若爾，即與《正理》相違。彼論既言：有成就能造大種非所造色，明知亦有能造大種無所造色。解云：《正理論》主述異師義。撿尋《婆沙》上下論文，全無此說。有成就能造大種非所造色，此即論意各別，無勞會釋。或可亦不相違。如受戒時初念大種造初念戒，即此大種復能懸造未來身中一期無表。理實成此初念大種，亦成現在所造無表。且望未來懸造戒說，故《正理》言有成就能造大種非所造色。若作此解，與彼《正理》亦不相違。問：若言此聲無先獨住異熟大造，是何大種？若謂此大種聲有即有、聲無即無，應異熟色斷已更續，有違宗過。若謂即以造身根等異熟大造，一四大種造二有對色，還有違宗。若謂造身根等異熟大種為緣，擊發生聲，據緣義邊說大第二，次後聲起說聲第三。以實此聲隨其所應，長養、等流大種所造。若作此解，雖無有失，何異第四、第五傳家？既非用彼異熟大造，何須別說第三傳耶？解云：異熟大種雖非親能造彼聲界，據緣生邊說聲第三，亦無有失。

"Some say that sound belongs to […] striking as a condition emits sound": in reply, there are two explanations, this being the first master's. Some say: because sound belongs to the third remove, although it is distantly and indirectly produced by that karma, it cannot be directly brought about [by it], and thus is not ripening. That is, karma is the first remove; the great elements produced from karma are the second remove; and the sound emitted from the great elements is the third remove. In principle, there should also be fourth and fifth removes, but they are not mentioned because if sound produced from ripening great elements is not even ripening, that sound produced from nutritively developed or outflow [elements] is not ripening admits of no doubt; hence they are not separately mentioned. Another explanation: an inference should be established: sound is not ripening, because it belongs to the third remove, like wholesome or unwholesome bodily feeling. Question: If sound is produced from karma and the great elements, then these four great elements are themselves ripening. What kind of ripening great elements produce this sound? Answer: Previously, ripening great elements existed alone; when they strike one another, sound is then produced; when they do not strike, there are only the great elements. Question: If so, there would be present great elements without derived matter. Answer: Even if this is accepted, there is no error. Thus Nyāyānusāra 20, explaining that the great elements are not simultaneous causes in relation to derived matter, states: "Namely, there are those who possess derived matter but not the four great elements, or those who possess the productive great elements but not derived matter." Answer: This refers to a noble one born in the immaterial realm who possesses lower uncontaminated discipline but does not possess the productive great elements; and one who, in the desire or form realm, possesses past and future discipline born of concentration, but does not possess the productive great elements; and one in the desire realm who, from the second moment onward, possesses past and present discipline, but does not possess the past productive great elements. If someone initially receives the prātimokṣa discipline, in the first moment there are outflow four great elements that remotely produce unmanifest [matter] to be born in the future; those great elements are possessed in the present, while the derived unmanifest [matter] still abides in the future, and because there was no prior acquisition, it is not yet possessed. Such cases are what is meant by possessing the great elements but not derived matter. In accordance with that treatise text, we know that there are also cases of possessing productive great elements without derived matter. Question: If so, that contradicts the Mahāvibhāṣā. For Mahāvibhāṣā 132 states: "If one possesses present great elements, does one possess present derived matter? Answer: Yes. Supposing one possesses present derived matter, does one possess present great elements? Answer: Yes. Because it is not the case that present great elements lack a fruit, nor is it the case that present derived matter lacks a cause." Since the Mahāvibhāṣā says, "Because it is not the case that present great elements lack a fruit," we clearly know that present great elements all have derived matter as their fruit, and there are no great elements existing alone. Answer: The intentions of the treatises are distinct; there is no need to reconcile them. Or perhaps they do not contradict each other: the Mahāvibhāṣā speaks according to the majority of cases. Were it not so, when receiving the discipline, in the first moment remotely producing future discipline, could one possibly possess that future discipline? Question: Outflow great elements remotely produce future discipline, so there can be present great elements existing alone. Ripening great elements do not remotely produce [future matter]; hence there should be no present ripening great elements existing alone. Answer: Although the meanings differ, they belong to the same category of great elements. Since outflow [elements] can exist alone in the present, ripening [elements] can also exist [alone]; what principle could forbid it? Another explanation: in the present, there are no ripening great elements that lack derived matter, because the previously cited Mahāvibhāṣā is extremely clear. Since it states, "Because it is not the case that present great elements lack a fruit," we know that there are no present great elements existing alone. Since it states, "Because it is not the case that present derived matter lacks a cause," we know that there is no present derived matter existing alone. It should be known that although unmanifest [matter] of subsequent moments lacks a productive cause in relation to present great elements, it has them as a supportive cause. Question: If so, that contradicts the Nyāyānusāra. Since that treatise says, "There are those who possess productive great elements but not derived matter," we clearly know that there are productive great elements without derived matter. Answer: The author of the Nyāyānusāra relates the view of a different master. Searching through the text of the Mahāvibhāṣā from beginning to end, there is entirely no such statement. Saying that one possesses productive great elements without derived matter represents distinct treatise intentions; there is no need to reconcile them. Or perhaps they do not contradict each other. Just as when receiving the discipline, the great elements of the first moment produce the discipline of the first moment, and these same great elements can also remotely produce the unmanifest [matter] of an entire lifetime in the future body. In truth, one possesses these great elements of the first moment and also possesses the present derived unmanifest [matter]. It was only said in relation to the discipline remotely produced in the future that the Nyāyānusāra says one possesses productive great elements without derived matter. If interpreted in this way, there is no contradiction with that Nyāyānusāra. Question: If it is said that this sound is not produced by previously existing ripening great elements standing alone, by what great elements is it produced? If one says that these great elements exist when sound exists and cease when sound ceases, then ripening matter would be interrupted and then resumed, incurring the fault of contradicting the school's doctrine. If one says that it is produced by the ripening great elements that produce the body-faculty and so forth, then a single set of four great elements would produce two obstructive types of matter, which likewise contradicts the school's doctrine. If one says that the ripening great elements that produce the body-faculty and so forth serve as a condition that strikes and emits sound, then from the perspective of being a condition, the great elements are spoken of as the second [remove], and the subsequent arising of sound as the third [remove]; in reality, this sound is produced, according to what is appropriate, by nutritively developed or outflow great elements. If this explanation is adopted, although it is without fault, how does it differ from the position of the fourth and fifth removes? Since it does not use those ripening great elements to produce it, why is it necessary to speak separately of a third remove? Answer: Although ripening great elements cannot directly produce that sound-element, from the perspective of arising from conditions, speaking of sound as the third [remove] is also without fault.