俱舍論記 27.102

27.102

「他心智通至一切境故」者，他心通三念住攝。宿住通四念住攝，通緣五蘊故。漏盡通四念住攝，通緣一切故。《正理》破云「宿住、漏盡，經主欲令一一皆通四念住攝，通緣五蘊一切境故。而實宿住，法念住攝。雖契經說念曾領受苦、樂等事，是憶前生苦、樂等受所領眾具，即是雜緣，法念住攝。漏盡如力，或法或四，不應定言四念住攝。」俱舍師救云：我許宿住亦有別緣，故通四念。言漏盡通四念住者，據十智說。六智唯法，類顯可知，故不別說。問：若言宿住通四念住，即與《婆沙》評家相違。如《婆沙》一百云「念住者，唯是雜緣法念住。尊者妙音作如是說：通四念住。如契經說：我念過去受苦、樂。既知樂、苦，即是受念住。評曰：應作是說，念過去世諸樂、苦具名受樂、苦，非但緣受。故彼非證。然宿住隨念智，總觀前生分位差別，唯是雜緣法念生攝。」解云：我以理為正，非以《婆沙》評家為量，雖同妙音亦無有過，經分明故不應異釋。

As for "The supernormal knowledge of the minds of others … because of [taking] all objects": The supernormal knowledge of the minds of others is subsumed under three applications of mindfulness. The supernormal knowledge of past abodes is subsumed under four applications of mindfulness, because it universally takes the five skandhas as objects. The supernormal knowledge of the destruction of the outflows is subsumed under four applications of mindfulness, because it universally takes everything as object. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying: "Regarding past abodes and the destruction of the outflows, the author of the commentary wishes to make each universally subsumed under four applications of mindfulness, because they universally take the five skandhas and all objects as their objects. But in reality, past abodes is subsumed under the application of mindfulness to dharmas. Although the sūtra states that one recollects previously experienced events such as suffering and pleasure, this is remembering the various requisites experienced along with the suffering, pleasure, and other feelings of previous lives; this is a mixed object-support, subsumed under the application of mindfulness to dharmas. The destruction of the outflows is like the [tenth] power: it is either [the application of mindfulness to] dharmas or to the four; it should not be definitively said to be subsumed under four applications of mindfulness." The Kośa master defends: "We accept that past abodes also has distinct object-supports, and therefore it covers the four applications of mindfulness. As for the statement that the destruction of the outflows covers the four applications of mindfulness, it is spoken based on the ten knowledges. Six knowledges are exclusively [the application of mindfulness to] dharmas, which can be understood as shown by type, and therefore are not stated separately." Question: If one says that past abodes covers the four applications of mindfulness, it contradicts the arbiter of the Mahāvibhāṣā. For the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 100, says: "As for the application of mindfulness, it is exclusively the application of mindfulness to dharmas with mixed object-supports. Venerable Ghoṣaka stated as follows: 'It covers four applications of mindfulness. As the sūtra says: "I recollect experiencing suffering and pleasure in the past." Since one knows pleasure and suffering, that is the application of mindfulness to feelings.' The verdict states: 'One should state it thus: Recollecting the various requisites of pleasure and suffering in past times is called experiencing pleasure and suffering; it does not take only feelings as object. Therefore, that is not proof. Rather, the knowledge of recollecting past abodes generally observes the differentiated states of previous lives, and is subsumed exclusively under the arising of [the application of mindfulness to] dharmas with mixed object-supports.'" Explanation: We take reasoned principle as correct, not taking the arbiter of the Mahāvibhāṣā as an authoritative measure. Although we agree with Ghoṣaka, there is no fault, because the sūtra is clear and should not be interpreted otherwise.