俱舍論記 22.142

22.142

「以能棄捨有欲貪故」者，答。以能棄捨有、欲貪故。有貪謂上界貪、欲貪謂欲界貪，此貪即是有、無有愛，故此第四無貪為體。故《正理》云「由此能治有、無有貪故，此亦以無貪為性。豈不第四亦能治瞋等，則應亦以無瞋等為性。非無此義，然以前三為資糧故、前三唯是無貪性故、此亦自能對治貪故，從強偏說。」又解：有謂有、無有，欲貪謂即欲是貪，以能棄捨有、無有、欲貪故。問：少欲、喜足俱對治貪，無貪為性。何故喜足立為聖種，非少欲耶？答：《正理》云「以少欲者容於衣等物有希求故。謂有意樂性下劣者，於未得境不敢多求，設已得多容求不歇。見喜足者少有所得尚不更求，況復多得。故唯喜足建立聖種。」廣如彼釋。又《婆沙》一百八十一云「答：少欲之名有過失、有增益，喜足不爾。有過失者，但言少欲，不言無欲故。有增益者，於實無欲而名少欲。少欲於未來處未得事轉，喜足於現在處已得事轉。不取現在一迦履沙鉢拏為難，非於未來轉輪王位。以喜足難，故立為聖種。」廣如彼釋（解云：鉢拏，此云錢，一迦履沙當十六貝珠，八十貝珠當一鉢拏，十六鉢拏名迦履沙鉢拏。《雜心》翻迦履沙鉢拏為一錢者，謬也）。問：於四依中何故不說藥為聖種，但說前三依？舊大德等皆言：四依中陳棄藥是糞穢者。不然。陳久之藥他人棄之，名陳棄藥。出家少欲，取而服之。答：《正理》云「於藥喜足何非聖種？不說於彼有愛生故。為治愛生建立聖種，經唯說有四種愛生，是故於藥不立聖種。或即攝在前三中故，謂藥有在衣服中攝、有在飲食中攝、有在臥具中攝，故藥喜足不別立聖種。」廣如彼釋。問：體雖同前，約界云何？答：如《婆沙》一百八十一云「界者，皆墮三界及不墮界。問：色界無飲食、無色界無前三，云何三界皆具四種？答：彼雖無食等，而有彼喜足功德。有說：由下界具四種故，展轉引生上界者亦具四種。尊者世友作如是說：上界雖無食等，而有彼對治。然對治有四種，謂斷對治、厭壞對治、持對治、遠分對治。色界於食等具四對治；欲界有三，除斷對治；無色界有二，謂持及遠分。」廣如彼釋。又《正理》云「緣衣服等所生喜足，如何可說是無漏耶？誰言如是喜足是無漏？若爾聖種寧皆通無漏？由彼增上所生聖道，彼所引故從彼為名，故言聖種皆通無漏。不作是言：緣衣服等所有喜足皆通無漏。少欲無漏，准此應釋。謂彼增上所生聖道，彼所引故從彼為名，非聖道生緣衣等境。」

"Because of being able to renounce craving for existence and craving of desire": answers. Because of being able to renounce craving for existence and craving of desire. Craving for existence (bhava-rāga) refers to craving of the higher realms; craving of desire (kāma-rāga) refers to craving of the desire realm. This craving is precisely craving for existence (bhava-tṛṣṇā) and craving for non-existence (vibhava-tṛṣṇā); therefore, this fourth has non-greed as its intrinsic nature. Thus the Nyāyānusāra states: "Because this is able to counter craving for existence and non-existence, this too has non-greed as its nature. Could it not be that the fourth is also able to counter hatred and so forth, and thus should also have non-hatred and so forth as its nature? It is not that this meaning is absent; however, because the first three serve as provisions, and because the first three are solely of the nature of non-greed, and because this [fourth] can also itself counter craving, it is predominantly stated according to what is strongest." Another explanation: "existence" means existence and non-existence; "craving of desire" means that desire is itself craving; because it is able to renounce existence, non-existence, and craving of desire. Question: Fewness of desires and contentment both counter craving and have non-greed as their nature. Why is contentment established as a noble lineage, and not fewness of desires? Answer: The Nyāyānusāra states: "Because one of few desires may still have longing for robes and other items. That is, one whose intentionality (āśaya) is base does not dare to seek much regarding unobtained objects, but supposing he has already obtained much, he may seek without ceasing. One sees that a content person, having obtained little, still does not seek further, not to mention having obtained much. Therefore, only contentment is established as a noble lineage." It is explained at length as therein. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 181, states: "Answer: The designation 'fewness of desires' carries fault and carries exaggeration; contentment does not. Carrying fault means: it only says 'few desires' and does not say 'no desires'. Carrying exaggeration means: when there is truly no desire, it is designated as 'few desires'. Fewness of desires operates regarding future, unobtained matters; contentment operates regarding present, already obtained matters. Not taking a present kārṣāpaṇa is difficult, not [refraining from] a future universal monarch's (cakravartin) position. Because contentment is difficult, it is established as a noble lineage." It is explained at length as therein. (Commentary: "paṇa" is translated here as coin; one karṣa equals sixteen cowrie shells, eighty cowrie shells equal one paṇa, and sixteen paṇas are called a kārṣāpaṇa. The Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya translates kārṣāpaṇa as 'one coin', which is erroneous.) Question: Why, among the four reliances (niśraya), is medicine not spoken of as a noble lineage, but only the first three reliances are spoken of? The ancient masters and others all said: In the four reliances, discarded medicine made from putrid things refers to excrement and urine. This is not so. Medicine that has been discarded by others after being kept for a long time is called discarded medicine. Having gone forth with few desires, one takes and consumes it. Answer: The Nyāyānusāra states: "Why is contentment with medicine not a noble lineage? Because it is not said that craving arises toward it. Noble lineages are established to counter the arising of craving, and the sūtra only speaks of four kinds of the arising of craving; therefore, no noble lineage is established regarding medicine. Alternatively, it is subsumed within the first three, because medicine is partly subsumed under robes, partly subsumed under food and drink, and partly subsumed under bedding and seating; therefore, contentment with medicine is not separately established as a noble lineage." It is explained at length as therein. Question: Although the intrinsic nature is identical to the preceding, how is it classified by realm? Answer: As the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 181, states: "Regarding realm: all are included in the three realms and not included in any realm (uncontaminated). Question: The form realm has no food or drink, and the formless realm lacks the first three; how can all three realms possess all four kinds? Answer: Although they lack food and so forth, they possess the virtue of contentment therewith. Some say: because the lower realm possesses all four kinds, successively inducing them, those of the higher realm also possess all four kinds. Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: Although the higher realm lacks food and so forth, it possesses their remedies. Yet remedies are of four kinds: abandonment remedy (prahāṇa-pratipakṣa), disgust remedy (vidūṣaṇā-pratipakṣa), maintaining remedy (dhāraṇa-pratipakṣa), and distancing remedy (dūrībhāva-pratipakṣa). The form realm possesses all four remedies toward food and so forth; the desire realm has three, excluding the abandonment remedy; the formless realm has two, namely the maintaining and distancing remedies." It is explained at length as therein. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: "How can contentment arising with robes and so forth as its object be said to be uncontaminated? Who says that such contentment is uncontaminated? If so, how can the noble lineages all apply to the uncontaminated? Because the noble path produced through their predominance is induced by them, it takes its name from them; therefore it is said that the noble lineages all apply to the uncontaminated. It does not state: all contentment that takes robes and so forth as its object is uncontaminated. Fewness of desires as uncontaminated should be explained by analogy to this: namely, the noble path produced through its predominance is induced by it and takes its name from it; it is not that the noble path arises taking robes and other objects as its object."