俱舍論記 26.91

26.91

「由本論故至故釋非理」者，外國師答。由本論故，即是《識身足論》。如本論說「頗有無漏不繫心能了別欲界繫法耶？答曰：能了別。謂非常等八種行相。及有是處，處是稱合道理相容受義。及有是事，事謂事用。此十皆名如理所引了別。」本論既離八行相外別說有是處、有是事是不繫心，故知離十六行相外別有無漏心。汝迦濕彌羅若謂彼文不為顯示不繫心，了別欲界繫法時，除前所明八行相外別有有是處、有是事行相，但為顯示不繫之心作八行相。緣欲界繫法，斯有是處、斯有是事。前八別說，後二總結，無別體性。此釋不然，本論餘文無此說故。謂若本論依此意說，應於本論餘處文中亦說此言有是處、有是事，總結前文。然彼餘文但作是說：頗有見斷心能了別欲界繫法耶？答：能了別，謂我故、我所故，是有身見。斷故、常故，是邊執見。無因故、無作故、損減故，是邪見。或無因故，集下邪見；無作故，道下邪見；損減故苦，滅下邪見。或無因故，謗因邪見；無作故，謗果邪見；損減故，謗因果邪見。尊故、勝故、上故、第一故是見取。或尊故，苦下見取；勝故，集下見取；上故，滅下見取；第一故，道下見取。或尊故，計勝預流；勝故，計勝一來；上故，計勝不還；第一故，計勝應果。能清淨故、能解脫故、能出離故是戒禁取。能清淨欲界，能解脫色界，能出離無色界。或能清淨煩惱障，能解脫業障，能出離異熟障。惑故、疑故、猶豫故，是疑。又解：惑是欲界，疑是色界，猶豫是無色界。又解：惑佛、疑法、猶預僧。及貪、嗔、慢，并癡、隨眠不如理所引了別，此等亦應說有是處、有是事言。見斷心後既無結言，故迦濕彌羅前解非理。

[On the text from] "From the fundamental treatise" down to "therefore the interpretation is irrational": the foreign masters reply. "From the fundamental treatise" refers to the *Vijñānakāya*. As the fundamental treatise states: "Is there any unpolluted, unbound mind that can cognize dharmas bound to the desire realm? Answer: It can cognize them. Namely, the eight aspects of impermanence and so forth; and 'there is a possibility'—'possibility' (sthāna) has the sense of conforming to reason and accommodating; and 'there is this fact'—'fact' (vastu) means function. These ten are all called cognitions induced in accord with principle." Since the fundamental treatise, apart from the eight aspects, separately speaks of "there is a possibility" and "there is this fact" as unbound minds, we know that apart from the sixteen aspects there are other unpolluted minds. If you Kaśmīris say that this text is not intended to show that when an unbound mind cognizes dharmas bound to the desire realm, apart from the previously explained eight aspects, there are separately the aspects of "there is a possibility" and "there is this fact," but only to show that when an unbound mind forms the eight aspects taking dharmas bound to the desire realm as object, "there is this possibility" and "there is this fact," such that the first eight are stated separately and the latter two are a concluding summary lacking distinct entities—this interpretation is not correct, because other passages of the fundamental treatise do not speak in this way. For if the fundamental treatise spoke with this intention, it should also say in other passages of the fundamental treatise "there is a possibility" and "there is this fact" to conclude the preceding text. Yet its other passages only speak thus: "Is there any mind abandoned by seeing that can cognize dharmas bound to the desire realm? Answer: It can cognize them; namely, 'because of self' and 'because of what belongs to self' are the view of self-existence; 'because of annihilation' and 'because of permanence' are the extreme view; 'because of having no cause,' 'because of having no agent,' and 'because of deprecation' are false views—or, 'because of having no cause' is the false view under origin; 'because of having no agent' is the false view under the path; 'because of deprecation' is the false view under suffering and cessation; or, 'because of having no cause' is the false view deprecating cause; 'because of having no agent' is the false view deprecating effect; 'because of deprecation' is the false view deprecating cause and effect; 'because of being noble,' 'because of being superior,' 'because of being supreme,' and 'because of being foremost' are the attachment to views—or, 'because of being noble' is attachment to views under suffering; 'because of being superior' is attachment to views under origin; 'because of being supreme' is attachment to views under cessation; 'because of being foremost' is attachment to views under the path; or, 'because of being noble' is considering oneself superior to a stream-enterer; 'because of being superior' is considering oneself superior to a once-returner; 'because of being supreme' is considering oneself superior to a non-returner; 'because of being foremost' is considering oneself superior to an arhat; 'because of being able to purify,' 'because of being able to liberate,' and 'because of being able to deliver' are the attachment to precepts and vows: able to purify the desire realm, able to liberate from the form realm, and able to deliver from the formless realm; or, able to purify the affliction-hindrance, able to liberate from the karma-hindrance, and able to deliver from the maturation-hindrance; 'because of perplexity,' 'because of doubt,' and 'because of hesitation' are doubt—further explained: perplexity applies to the desire realm, doubt to the form realm, and hesitation to the formless realm; or further explained: perplexity regarding the Buddha, doubt regarding the Dharma, and hesitation regarding the Saṃgha; as well as greed, hostility, pride, and the anuśaya of ignorance, which are cognitions not induced in accord with principle." For these as well, it should have stated "there is a possibility" and "there is this fact." Since there is no concluding statement after the mind abandoned by seeing, the Kaśmīris' preceding interpretation is irrational.