俱舍論記 2.94

2.94

「論曰至謂除前相」者，此明得也。謂生欲界，胎、卵、濕生漸得眼根，簡異頓得。色根無記，非成過、未，起時名得。識通三性，亦有前、後得。識先成故，今不名得。雖有生盲及漸捨眼等，欲界沒還生欲界等，名得眼、不得識。若從二定已上生欲界等，中有初心，即名得識、不得眼。若無色沒生欲界等，即眼、識俱得。以生欲界等不定故，約漸得眼說。又解：略而不論，非皆舉盡。又解：漸得眼言亦攝此等。及從無色沒生上三定時，中有初心，必得眼根名得眼，識未起故不名得。第二句，生二定等眼識現起，識現起故名得。現之言正，起之言生。識在生相名為現起，爾時名得；眼先成故不名得。及從二定等沒生下欲，初定時中有初心，必得識故名得識。從彼沒，顯正住死有。中有至生相時，名生下地，爾時名得也；眼先成故不名得。第三、第四句可知。應知生上三地起下眼識，唯是無記。故《婆沙》七十三云「此中眼識依自地眼緣下地色，容有二種，謂除染污。緣自地色容有三種。若依上地眼，唯無覆無記。善、染污眼識唯生自地容現在前，由此必定繫屬生故。」問：生上三定起下三識，是何無記？解云：泛借起者，是威儀無記。異熟生心，非起異地。工巧上界無，泛借下識，復非通果。故知威儀。問：生上三定起下眼、耳二通，是何無記？解云：《雜心論》主達摩多羅造《對法藏論》中說：天眼、耳通是威儀無記。工巧唯欲，不通上界；異熟非異地起；變化唯意。既非餘三，明知二通定威儀。此解不然，違理、教故。如下論云「色界威儀心，二十心中從五心生。謂自界五，除通果心。能生七心，謂自界四，除加行通果；欲界二染污；無色界一染污。」若言二通威儀心者，應生加行善心，如變化心由定引起，與定相生，不與餘心相生。二通亦爾，既由定引起，還應與定相生，不生餘心。若說威儀能生於定，此即不然，違論文故。威儀定不能生加行。若言生上三定起下二通，非入於定，隨其所應入上三定生得等心。亦此不然，生上起下設許此解，如生欲界三乘無學起上二通，從何心出？既無煩惱不能出染，身生下地非能起上生得善心。不起異地生得善心，《正理》有文，如下當引。亦不能起異地聞慧，此慧由彼生得導引。既不能起生得善心，故聞慧心亦不能起。不起異地聞慧善心，《婆沙》有文，亦如下引。假設得起，聞慧亦不能生，以威儀心不能生加行善心故。修慧既是加行，威儀理亦不生。異熟生心非起異地，變化唯與定心相生。又上威儀不能生欲善及無覆，如廣心說。由斯徵責，故知彼執天眼、耳通是威儀心，理亦不成立。又西方德光論師《集真論》中說：眼、耳二通是自性無記，非四無記。此亦不然。諸論廣心唯說二十心。若言更有自性無記，應說有二十一心，故亦非理。今依正解，眼、耳二通四無記中通果無記。應知通果名寬，變化等狹，如非得名寬，異生性等狹。既說二是通果攝，與定相生即無妨矣。問：二通若是通果心攝，同化心者。諸論皆說二通變化三世成就，生上三定成下化心。未知二通為成下不？若說成下，即不應言生上三定眼識現起方言得識；若不成下，與彼化心同是通果、同是無記，何故成下化心不成二通？解云：生上三定、成下二通，是通果故，如成化心。論不說成，據泛借說。又解：生上三定、不成下二通。通果有二：一在意識，其力強盛生上成下，如變化心。二在五識，其力稍劣不能成下。若繫屬自地。依自地發者，即有三世得，如善習自地威儀、工巧有三世得。諸論說二通三世得者，據初定二通說。若生上三定起下異地二通，唯有法俱。如泛借下三識及威儀心，非是善習，唯法俱得。此論言不成下，據此以說。問：若生上地不成就下異地二通者，身在欲界離欲界染，應亦無有成上異地二通。然論說五通曾修離染得，既有離染得，明知亦有能成異地。何故生上不成下，生下得成上？解云：生下成上易故成，生上成下難故不成。又解：生上三定，下地二通或成、不成，若串習者即成，若不串習者不成，以不定故，不說成也。

Regarding '[The treatise says...] up to [referring to excluding the preceding cases]': this clarifies acquisition. That is, being born in the kāmadhātu as womb-born, egg-born, or moisture-born, one gradually obtains the eye faculty; this excludes instantaneous acquisition. The material faculties are indeterminate (avyākṛta), not possessing the past and future, and at the time they arise it is called acquisition. Consciousness pertains to the three natures and also has prior and posterior acquisition. Because consciousness is already possessed beforehand, it is not now called acquisition. Although there are those born blind or gradually shedding the eye, dying in the kāmadhātu and being reborn in the kāmadhātu, which is called obtaining the eye but not consciousness; if dying from the second dhyāna or above and being born in the kāmadhātu and so forth, at the initial moment of intermediate existence (antarābhava) it is called obtaining consciousness but not the eye. If dying from the ārūpyadhātu and being born in the kāmadhātu and so forth, one obtains both the eye and consciousness. Because being born in the kāmadhātu and so forth is indefinite, it is spoken of in terms of gradually obtaining the eye. Another explanation: it is omitted and not discussed, not exhaustively enumerating every case. Another explanation: the words 'gradually obtaining the eye' also subsume these cases. And when, dying from the ārūpyadhātu, one is born into the upper three dhyānas, at the initial moment of intermediate existence one necessarily obtains the eye faculty, which is called obtaining the eye; because consciousness has not yet arisen, it is not called obtaining [consciousness]. In the second proposition, being born in the second dhyāna and so on, the eye-consciousness manifests; because the consciousness manifests, it is called obtaining [it]. 'Manifesting' means directly present; 'arising' means coming into being. When the consciousness is at its rising characteristic, it is called manifesting, and at that time it is called obtaining [it]; because the eye is already possessed, it is not called obtaining [it]. And when, dying from the second dhyāna and so on, one is born in the lower kāmadhātu or the first dhyāna, at the initial moment of intermediate existence one necessarily obtains consciousness, so it is called obtaining consciousness. 'Dying from there' indicates directly abiding in the state of death (maraṇabhava). When intermediate existence reaches its rising characteristic, it is called being born in the lower realm, and at that time it is called obtaining [it]; because the eye is already possessed, it is not called obtaining [it]. The third and fourth propositions are understandable. It should be known that when one born in the upper three realms gives rise to the lower eye-consciousness, it is exclusively indeterminate. Therefore the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle seventy-three, says: 'Here, when the eye-consciousness based on the eye of its own realm takes a lower-realm visible form as its object, there can be two kinds: namely, excluding the defiled. When taking a visible form of its own realm as object, there can be three kinds. If based on an eye of a higher realm, it is exclusively non-obscured indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta). Wholesome and defiled eye-consciousnesses are permitted to manifest only when born in their own realm, because they are definitely bound to their realm of rebirth.' Question: When one born in the upper three dhyānas gives rise to the lower three consciousnesses, which kind of indeterminate is it? Explanation: Generally borrowing them to arise, it is deportment indeterminate (īryāpatha-avyākṛta). Result-of-ripening (vipākaja) mind does not arise in a different realm. Craftsmanship (śilpasthāna) does not exist in the higher realms; and generally borrowing the lower consciousness is also not the fruition of supernormal power (abhijñā-phala). Therefore we know it is deportment [indeterminate]. Question: When one born in the upper three dhyānas gives rise to the lower two supernormal powers of divine eye and ear, which kind of indeterminate is it? Explanation: The author of the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, Dharmatrāta, states in the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra: the divine eye and ear supernormal powers are deportment indeterminate. Craftsmanship exists only in desire, not extending to the upper realms; ripening does not arise in a different realm; transformation (nirmāṇa) is only mental. Since they are not the other three, it is evident that the two supernormal powers are definitely deportment [indeterminate]. This explanation is incorrect, because it contradicts both reason and scripture. As stated below in the treatise: 'The mind of deportment in the rūpadhātu arises from five minds among the twenty minds: namely, five of its own realm, excluding the mind that is the fruition of supernormal power. It can give rise to seven minds: namely, four of its own realm, excluding preparatory effort and the fruition of supernormal power; two defiled of the kāmadhātu; and one defiled of the ārūpyadhātu.' If one says that the two supernormal powers are deportment minds, they should give rise to preparatory wholesome minds; just as a transformation mind is induced by concentration and arises mutually with concentration, not mutually with other minds. The two supernormal powers are also like this: since they are induced by concentration, they should also arise mutually with concentration and not give rise to other minds. If one says that deportment can give rise to concentration, this is incorrect, because it contradicts the treatise. Deportment definitely cannot give rise to preparatory effort. If one says that when one born in the upper three dhyānas gives rise to the lower two supernormal powers, one is not entering concentration, but enters the upper three dhyānas' innately acquired or other minds as appropriate: this too is incorrect. Even if one grants this explanation for being born above and giving rise to what is below, when an aśaikṣa of the three vehicles born in the kāmadhātu gives rise to the upper two supernormal powers, from what mind does he emerge? Since he has no afflictions, he cannot emerge into defilement; with his body born in the lower realm, he cannot give rise to the upper innately acquired wholesome mind. That one cannot give rise to an innately acquired wholesome mind of a different realm is stated in the Nyāyānusāra, as will be cited below. Nor can he give rise to the hearing-wisdom (śrutamayī-prajñā) of a different realm, for this wisdom is guided by that innately acquired [mind]. Since he cannot give rise to the innately acquired wholesome mind, he also cannot give rise to the hearing-wisdom mind. That one cannot give rise to the hearing-wisdom wholesome mind of a different realm is stated in the Mahāvibhāṣā, as will also be cited below. Even if one assumed it could arise, hearing-wisdom could also not be generated, because a deportment mind cannot generate a preparatory wholesome mind. Since cultivation-wisdom (bhāvanāmayī-prajñā) is preparatory effort, by reason deportment also does not generate it. A result-of-ripening mind does not arise in a different realm, and transformation only arises mutually with concentration mind. Furthermore, upper deportment cannot generate kāmadhātu wholesome or non-obscured [minds], as explained in the detailed section on minds. Questioned and refuted through this, we know that his position that the divine eye and ear supernormal powers are deportment minds is also not tenable by reason. Furthermore, Master Guṇaprabha of the West in the *Satyasaṃgraha-śāstra states: the eye and ear supernormal powers are intrinsically indeterminate (svabhāva-avyākṛta), not belonging to the four indeterminates. This too is incorrect. The treatises' detailed section on minds speaks only of twenty minds. If one says there is additionally an intrinsically indeterminate, one should speak of twenty-one minds, so this is also unreasonable. Now, according to the correct explanation: the eye and ear supernormal powers belong to the fruition-of-supernormal-power indeterminate among the four indeterminates. It should be known that the term 'fruition of supernormal power' is broad, while transformation and so forth are narrow, just as the term 'non-acquisition' (aprāpti) is broad, while the nature of an ordinary person and so forth are narrow. Since both are said to be subsumed under the fruition of supernormal power, there is no impediment to their arising mutually with concentration. Question: If the two supernormal powers are subsumed under the fruition of supernormal power and are identical to transformation mind, all treatises state that the two supernormal powers and transformation are possessed across the three times, and one born in the upper three dhyānas possesses the lower transformation mind. It is not known whether the two supernormal powers are possessed of what is below or not? If one says they are possessed of what is below, then one should not say that only when the eye-consciousness manifests for one born in the upper three dhyānas is it called obtaining consciousness; if they are not possessed of what is below, since like transformation mind they are equally the fruition of supernormal power and equally indeterminate, why does one possess the lower transformation mind but not the two supernormal powers? Explanation: Being born in the upper three dhyānas, one possesses the lower two supernormal powers because they are the fruition of supernormal power, just like possessing transformation mind. That the treatise does not mention possession is stated in terms of generally borrowing. Another explanation: being born in the upper three dhyānas, one does not possess the lower two supernormal powers. Fruition of supernormal power has two types: one is in mental consciousness, whose power is vigorous, so when born above it possesses what is below, like transformation mind; the second is in the five consciousnesses, whose power is slightly inferior, so it cannot possess what is below. If they are bound to their own realm and generated based on their own realm, then there is possession in the three times, just as well-practiced deportment and craftsmanship of one's own realm have possession in the three times. When treatises say the two supernormal powers have possession in the three times, it is said in reference to the two supernormal powers of the first dhyāna. If one born in the upper three dhyānas gives rise to the lower, different-realm two supernormal powers, there is only simultaneous possession with the phenomenon (sahabhu-prāpti). Just as with generally borrowing the lower three consciousnesses and deportment mind, they are not well-practiced, so there is only simultaneous possession. When this treatise says that one does not possess what is below, it is spoken based on this. Question: If one born in an upper realm does not possess the lower, different-realm two supernormal powers, then when someone whose body is in the kāmadhātu is free from the defilements of the kāmadhātu, he should also not possess the upper, different-realm two supernormal powers. Yet the treatises say that the five supernormal powers are obtained through past cultivation and through detachment from desire; since there is acquisition through detachment from desire, it is clear that there is also the ability to possess what belongs to a different realm. Why is it that being born above one does not possess what is below, but being born below one can possess what is above? Explanation: Being born below, possessing what is above is easy, so it is possessed; being born above, possessing what is below is difficult, so it is not possessed. Another explanation: for one born in the upper three dhyānas, the lower-realm two supernormal powers are either possessed or not possessed; if one has habituated them, they are possessed, and if one has not habituated them, they are not possessed; because it is indefinite, possession is not stated.