俱舍論記 20.79

20.79

「論曰至皆容緣故」者，釋初頌。若欲界繫苦、集、修斷。十六識內各五識緣，謂自界三，即如前說；及色界一，即修所斷；無漏第五，皆容緣故。於此五中有不緣者，故說容緣。且如欲界見苦所斷，容為欲界見苦所斷識緣。然彼見苦所斷識，有緣餘部及他界者即不能緣，然有能緣者，故說容緣。就見苦所斷中，亦非一切皆能遍緣，如此貪緣此法，不緣彼法等。下皆准此。若別分別，欲三斷法各五識緣者，《婆沙》八十七云「欲界見苦所斷法，五識所緣：一欲界見苦所斷一切隨眠相應識、二欲界見集所斷遍行隨眠相應識、三欲界修所斷善及無覆無記識、四色修所斷善及無覆無記識、五法智品無漏識。」解云：欲界修所斷善及無覆無記識者，善謂生得、加行，無記謂異熟生、威儀路、工巧處，非通果心，唯緣色故。色修所斷善及無覆無記識者，善謂生得、加行，無記謂異熟生、威儀路，非通果心。雖天眼、耳識亦能緣下，但緣修斷色、聲為境，非緣見苦所斷。法智品言，通攝法忍及俱心等。問：以何文證無覆無記能緣異部及下見苦所斷法耶？解云：《婆沙》八十七云「問：異熟生無記識能緣何法？答：欲界不善果者，唯緣欲界修所斷法。善果者，唯緣欲界五部法。色界者，緣自、下地一切有漏法。有說：唯緣自地五部法。無色界者，唯緣自地五部法。問：威儀路識能緣何法？答：欲界者，唯緣欲界五部法。色界者，唯緣欲、色界五部法。問：工巧處識能緣何法？答：唯緣欲界五部法。問：通果無記識能緣何法？答：欲界者，唯緣欲界修所斷法。色界者，唯緣欲、色界修所斷法（已上論文）。」問：若無覆識亦能緣下見苦所斷，何故《正理》五十三解欲見苦斷五識緣中但云「色修所斷善識非餘。」准彼論文，不言無記緣下見苦所斷。《婆沙》言緣，豈不相違？解云：《婆沙》論文極理分明，《正理》不說有違宗過。又解：《婆沙》言緣，據身在上，能緣下地。《正理》不說，據身在下，不能起上無覆無記緣下見苦所斷。各據一義，故不相違。欲見集斷及修所斷各五識緣，准釋應知。又空法師云：「色界威儀心雖能緣下，以緣色、聲，不能緣見苦所斷身、邊二見隱沒無記心。」此解不然，違《婆沙》故。

Regarding [the passage] from "The commentary says" up to "since all admit of being cognized": this explains the first verse. If bound to the desire realm and abandoned by [the vision of] suffering, [the vision of] origination, or cultivation: among the sixteen consciousnesses, each is cognized by five consciousnesses—namely, three of its own realm, just as stated before; one of the form realm, namely [the consciousness] abandoned by cultivation; and the fifth, anāsrava—since all admit of being cognized. Among these five, there are some that do not cognize it, which is why it is said they "admit of being cognized." For example, that which is abandoned by the vision of suffering in the desire realm admits of being cognized by the consciousness abandoned by the vision of suffering in the desire realm. However, among those consciousnesses abandoned by the vision of suffering, those that take other categories or other realms as objects cannot cognize it; yet because there are those capable of cognizing it, it is said they "admit of being cognized." Even within those abandoned by the vision of suffering, not all can cognize universally, just as this attachment takes this dharma as an object and does not take that dharma as an object, and so on. The rest below should be understood accordingly. If distinguished specifically, that each of the three classes of abandoned dharmas in the desire realm is cognized by five consciousnesses, the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle eighty-seven, says: "Dharmas abandoned by the vision of suffering in the desire realm are the objects of five consciousnesses: (1) consciousness associated with all anuśayas abandoned by the vision of suffering in the desire realm; (2) consciousness associated with universal anuśayas abandoned by the vision of origination in the desire realm; (3) wholesome and unobstructed-indeterminate consciousnesses abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm; (4) wholesome and unobstructed-indeterminate consciousnesses abandoned by cultivation in the form realm; (5) anāsrava consciousness belonging to the category of Dharma-knowledge." The explanation says: as for "wholesome and unobstructed-indeterminate consciousnesses abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm," wholesome refers to innate and preparatory, while indeterminate refers to fruition-born, deportment, and arts and crafts, not including the supernormal fruition mind, because that cognizes only form. As for "wholesome and unobstructed-indeterminate consciousnesses abandoned by cultivation in the form realm," wholesome refers to innate and preparatory, while indeterminate refers to fruition-born and deportment, not including the supernormal fruition mind. Although the divine eye and ear consciousnesses can also cognize lower realms, they only take form and sound abandoned by cultivation as objects, not taking that which is abandoned by the vision of suffering as an object. The phrase "category of Dharma-knowledge" comprehensively includes the Dharma-receptive [patience] and the minds concomitant with it. Question: By what text is it proved that unobstructed-indeterminate [consciousness] can cognize different categories and lower-realm [phenomena] abandoned by the vision of suffering? The explanation says: the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle eighty-seven, says: "Question: What dharmas can the fruition-born indeterminate consciousness cognize? Answer: That which is the fruit of unwholesomeness in the desire realm cognizes only dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. That which is the fruit of wholesomeness cognizes dharmas of all five categories in the desire realm. That of the form realm cognizes all sāsrava dharmas of its own and lower grounds. Some say: it cognizes only dharmas of the five categories of its own ground. That of the formless realm cognizes only dharmas of the five categories of its own ground. Question: What dharmas can the deportment consciousness cognize? Answer: That of the desire realm cognizes only dharmas of the five categories in the desire realm. That of the form realm cognizes dharmas of the five categories in the desire and form realms. Question: What dharmas can the arts and crafts consciousness cognize? Answer: It cognizes only dharmas of the five categories in the desire realm. Question: What dharmas can the supernormal fruition indeterminate consciousness cognize? Answer: That of the desire realm cognizes only dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. That of the form realm cognizes only dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the desire and form realms (end of citation from the treatise)." Question: If the unobstructed consciousness can also cognize lower-realm [phenomena] abandoned by the vision of suffering, why does *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle fifty-three, in explaining the five consciousnesses that cognize that which is abandoned by the vision of suffering in the desire realm, only say: "wholesome consciousness abandoned by cultivation in the form realm, and no other"? In accord with that text, it does not state that the indeterminate cognizes lower-realm [phenomena] abandoned by the vision of suffering. When the *Vibhāṣā* states that it cognizes it, are they not contradictory? The explanation says: the text of the *Vibhāṣā* is exceptionally clear on the principle; that the *Nyāyānusāra* does not state it is a fault of contradicting its own school. Alternatively, it is explained: the *Vibhāṣā*'s statement of cognizing is based on one whose body is in a higher [realm] being able to cognize a lower ground. That the *Nyāyānusāra* does not state it is based on one whose body is in a lower [realm] being unable to give rise to a higher unobstructed-indeterminate [consciousness] to cognize lower-realm [phenomena] abandoned by the vision of suffering. Each is based on one aspect, and so they do not contradict each other. That those abandoned by the vision of origination and those abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm are each cognized by five consciousnesses should be understood by analogy with this explanation. Furthermore, Master Kong said: "Although the deportment mind of the form realm can cognize lower realms, because it cognizes form and sound, it cannot cognize the concealed-indeterminate minds of the two views, view of self-existence and extreme views, which are abandoned by the vision of suffering." This explanation is incorrect, because it contradicts the *Vibhāṣā*.