俱舍論記 21.10

21.10

「二唯不善至故唯立二」者，八纏家答。故《正理》五十四云「若立八纏，應作是釋：二唯不善，自在起故。謂唯此二兩義具足，餘六無一具兩義者。無慚、無愧雖唯不善、非自在起，悔自在起、非唯不善，餘兩皆無（解云：餘睡眠、惛沈、掉舉，兩義皆無。餘文可知）。」問：若言睡眠非自在起，何故《婆沙》五十有一復次廢立中云「復次以嫉與慳，獨立、離二，故立為結。餘纏不爾。獨立者，謂自現行。離二者，謂一向不善。忿、覆二纏雖能獨立亦復離二，而似隨眠，為隨眠相之所映奪，其相不顯故不立結。由此義故，外國諸師說此二種即隨眠性。惛沈、掉舉不能獨立，他力起故；亦不離二，或是不善或無記故。睡眠、惡作雖亦獨立而不離二，睡眠通善、不善、無記；惡作通善、不善性故。無慚、無愧雖是離二而非獨立。唯嫉與慳獨立、離二，異隨眠相，故立為結。」准《婆沙》文，睡眠亦是自在起，何故《正理》言非自在？解云：婆沙餘師義，非與《正理》同。說八說十既各不同，明知異說。又解：睡眠若與餘惑相應，非自在起，《正理》據此說。若與善、無覆心相應是自在起，《婆沙》據此說。各據一義，竝不相違。

Regarding "Because the two are exclusively unwholesome... therefore only two are established": this is the answer of the proponent of eight entanglements. Thus the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 54, states: "If eight entanglements are established, one should explain it thus: because the two are exclusively unwholesome and arise independently. That is, only these two possess both meanings, while none of the other six possesses both meanings. Although shamelessness and unconscionableness are exclusively unwholesome, they do not arise independently; regret arises independently, but is not exclusively unwholesome; the remaining ones lack both (Explanation: the remaining ones—sleep, torpor, and restlessness—lack both meanings; the rest of the text is clear)." Question: If it is said that sleep does not arise independently, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 50, state in one alternative explanation of establishment: "Furthermore, because jealousy and stinginess are independent and isolated from the two, they are established as fetters. The other entanglements are not so. 'Independent' means manifesting on their own. 'Isolated from the two' means definitively unwholesome. Although the two entanglements of anger (krodha) and hypocrisy (mrakṣa) can arise independently and are also isolated from the two, they resemble the anuśayas and are eclipsed by the characteristics of anuśayas; their characteristics are not prominent, so they are not established as fetters. For this reason, masters of foreign lands say that these two are of the nature of anuśayas. Torpor and restlessness cannot arise independently because they arise through the power of others; nor are they isolated from the two, being either unwholesome or indeterminate. Although sleep and remorse also arise independently, they are not isolated from the two: sleep runs through wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, and remorse runs through wholesome and unwholesome natures. Shamelessness and unconscionableness, though isolated from the two, are not independent. Only jealousy and stinginess are independent and isolated from the two, distinct from the characteristics of anuśayas, and are therefore established as fetters." According to the text of the Mahāvibhāṣā, sleep also arises independently; why does the Nyāyānusāra say it is not independent? Explanation: The meaning of other masters in the Mahāvibhāṣā is not the same as the Nyāyānusāra. Since the assertions of eight and ten are already different, it is clearly known to be a divergent explanation. Another explanation: if sleep is associated with other defilements, it does not arise independently—the Nyāyānusāra speaks based on this. If it is associated with a wholesome or non-obscured mind, it arises independently—the Mahāvibhāṣā speaks based on this. Each is based on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other.