俱舍論記 27.140

27.140

「由先願力至亦得發語」者，答。由先願力留所化身，後起餘通果心發語表業故。雖變化通果心、發語通果心二心不俱，而依化身亦得發語。應知通果心寬，化心、發語心皆名通果，以此故知發語心非是化心，別有一類通果心能發語業，以化心不能化聲處故。又空法師云：「化心不能發業，然別有發業心。如身生欲界、初定，化作欲界、初定身已還却入定，從定出已起自地善、無記發業心，令化主語，化人方語。若生上三定，雖無發業心，以初定發業心發自地語，令下欲界及上三定化人言語。」此解不然，檢尋諸論未見有文以初定發業心令其欲界化人語言，故說非理。又泰法師云：「自古諸師皆依《俱舍》『發語心起，化心既無，故知化心不能發語。』又前論云『若欲界化外四處，除聲。故知化心不化聲處』者，不然，依舊十四卷《鞞婆沙》云『欲界化六入，色界化四入。』故知化心亦化聲處。又今《婆沙》一百三十九云『若生初靜慮，成就欲界一，謂法捨意近行。即通果心俱，總緣色等為境起故。有說：彼成就三，謂色、聲、法捨意近行，即通果心俱。此心若緣所起身表，即有緣色捨意近行。此心若緣所起語表，即有緣聲捨意近行。此心若緣所發化事，以總緣故，即有緣法捨意近行。有說：彼成就六，謂六捨意近行，即通果心俱，此心容有總別緣故。』又依《婆沙》梵王請佛轉法輪時，評家云『以欲界不隱沒無記心語，故作梵福。』由此多證，故知化心亦能發語。然此論云『發語心起化心既無』者，此中問意，化心、發語名發語心。化心依化身立化心名，欲明二心不竝起。如何身語竝？故化語心別立發語心名。若發語心亦立化心名者，不成問答，欲彰二心別故。此中別說發語心名，能變化心實能發語，故與前引文不相違。然論云『唯化四處，除聲』者，聲不常有。四相及得、名、句、文等非是色法，故略不論。若通據聲及非色法，即化六處，如前所引。」今解：不然。別有通果心發語，化心不能發語，寬狹如前說。法師未委通果心寬、變化心狹，謂諸通果心皆是化心，故作斯釋。檢尋《婆沙》及諸論文，皆言欲界化四，除聲，色界化二，謂色、觸。不言化聲處，亦不言化法處。又《婆沙》上下論文皆言：若生色界作欲界化，發欲界語。但言發，不言化。問：舊《鞞婆沙》云「欲界化六入，色界化四入」者，云何釋通？解云：未審此論定是何部引來為證？設是當部，從多分說。如《品類足》言「通云何謂善慧？或相從說。或非正義，違諸論故。」問：若語聲非可化者，何故《集異門足論》第五解三欲生中云「謂他化自在天造作增長如是類業。彼由此業，與諸他化自在天，雖同一類身、同一趣、同一生、同一進趣，而有高下勝劣差別。諸下劣天子化作種種色、聲、香、味、觸、法諸妙欲境，令高勝天子於中受用。」解云：彼由業力令他化作，非由化心。不可為例。或可從多分說。以實而言，聲由擊發，不可言化，以間斷故。或聲不離所化色、香、味、觸四種，相從說故亦名為化。復有古德云：梵王請佛轉法輪，以欲界威儀、工巧心語者。此不成釋，如二十心中色界六心，必不能生欲界威儀、工巧心；又欲界通果心，亦不能生欲界威儀、工巧心。梵王如何得起欲界威儀、工巧語？

"Through the power of a prior resolution, up to can also produce speech": This is the answer. Because through the power of a prior resolution, one retains the transformed body, and subsequently produces another mind that is a fruition of supernormal cognition to generate the bodily action of speech, although the two minds—the mind that produces the transformation and the mind that produces speech, both being fruitions of supernormal cognition—are not simultaneous, relying on the transformed body speech can nonetheless also be produced. One should know that "mind that is a fruition of supernormal cognition" has a broader scope; the mind of transformation and the mind that produces speech are both called fruitions of supernormal cognition. From this, one knows that the mind that produces speech is not the mind of transformation; there is a distinct class of fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind that can generate the action of speech, because the mind of transformation cannot transform the sound-base. Furthermore, Master Kong said: "The mind of transformation cannot generate action; rather, there is a distinct mind that generates action. For instance, when one's body is born in the desire realm or the first dhyāna, having transformed a body of the desire realm or first dhyāna, one re-enters absorption; upon emerging from absorption, one produces a wholesome or non-defined action-generating mind of one's own stage to cause the creator of the transformation to speak, and only then does the transformed person speak. If born in the upper three dhyānas, although there is no action-generating mind [of those stages], one uses the action-generating mind of the first dhyāna to produce the speech of its own stage, causing transformed persons of the lower desire realm and the upper three dhyānas to speak." This explanation is incorrect; upon searching the treatises, no text has been found stating that one uses the action-generating mind of the first dhyāna to cause transformed persons of the desire realm to speak; therefore, this statement is unreasonable. Furthermore, Master Tai said: "All masters since antiquity have relied on the Kośa: 'When the speech-generating mind arises, the transformation mind no longer exists; hence we know the transformation mind cannot produce speech.' Moreover, the earlier treatise states: 'If in the desire realm, one transforms the external four bases, excluding sound. Hence we know the transformation mind does not transform the sound-base.' This is incorrect. Relying on the old Vibhāṣā in fourteen fascicles, it says: 'In the desire realm one transforms six sense-entrances, and in the form realm one transforms four sense-entrances.' Hence we know the transformation mind also transforms the sound-base. Furthermore, the present Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 139, says: 'If born in the first dhyāna, one possesses one [mental application] of the desire realm, namely the mental application of equanimity regarding phenomena. That is, it is concurrent with the fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind, arising by taking visible form, etc., collectively as an object. Some say: he possesses three, namely the mental applications of equanimity regarding visible form, sound, and phenomena, which are concurrent with the fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind. If this mind takes the bodily vijñapti produced as an object, there is the mental application of equanimity regarding visible form. If this mind takes the vocal vijñapti produced as an object, there is the mental application of equanimity regarding sound. If this mind takes the transformed matter produced as an object, because it takes them collectively as an object, there is the mental application of equanimity regarding phenomena. Some say: he possesses six, namely the six mental applications of equanimity, concurrent with the fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind, because this mind can take objects both collectively and distinctly.' Furthermore, relying on the Mahāvibhāṣā, when King Brahmā requested the Buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma, the evaluators said: 'Because he spoke with an unobscured, non-defined mind of the desire realm, he created Brahmic merit.' Through these many proofs, we know the transformation mind can also produce speech. However, as for this treatise stating: 'When the speech-generating mind arises, the transformation mind no longer exists,' the intended question here is that the transformation mind producing speech is named the speech-generating mind. The transformation mind is designated as the transformation mind in dependence on the transformed body, intending to show that the two minds do not arise simultaneously. How could body and speech occur simultaneously? Therefore, the mind that transforms speech is separately designated as the speech-generating mind. If the speech-generating mind were also designated as the transformation mind, the question and answer would not be established; it is because one wishes to show the distinction between the two minds. Here, the name 'speech-generating mind' is separately stated, but the mind capable of transformation is actually able to produce speech; thus it does not contradict the previously cited text. However, as for the treatise stating: 'One only transforms four bases, excluding sound,' sound is not constant. The four characteristics, acquisition, names, phrases, phonemes, and so on, are not material phenomena; therefore, they are omitted from discussion. If sound and non-material phenomena are included broadly, then one transforms six bases, as cited before." Now the explanation is: this is not so. A distinct fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind produces speech; the transformation mind cannot produce speech; the broad and narrow scopes are as stated before. The master did not comprehend that fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind is broad while the transformation mind is narrow, and supposing that all fruition-of-supernormal-cognition minds are transformation minds, he made this explanation. Upon checking the Mahāvibhāṣā and various treatise passages, all state that in the desire realm one transforms four, excluding sound, and in the form realm one transforms two, namely visible form and tangible objects. They do not say one transforms the sound-base, nor do they say one transforms the phenomena-base. Furthermore, the texts throughout the Mahāvibhāṣā all say: if born in the form realm one makes a transformation of the desire realm, one produces speech of the desire realm. It only says "produces", not "transforms". Question: The old Vibhāṣā says, "In the desire realm one transforms six sense-entrances, and in the form realm one transforms four sense-entrances." How is this explained away? Answer: It is not certain from which school this treatise cited it as evidence. Even if it were from our own school, it was stated according to the majority. Just as the Prakaraṇapāda says, "What is supernormal cognition? It means wholesome wisdom"; or it is spoken by association; or it is not the correct tenet, because it contradicts the various treatises. Question: If the vocal sound of speech cannot be transformed, why does the Saṅgītiparyāyapāda, fascicle 5, explaining the three kinds of birth according to desire, say: "Namely, the gods of Paranirmitavaśavartin create and accumulate karma of this kind. Due to this karma, although they are of the same class of body, the same destiny, the same birth, and the same progress as the other Paranirmitavaśavartin gods, there are distinctions of high and low, superior and inferior. The inferior gods transform various exquisite desire objects of visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and phenomena, causing the superior gods to enjoy them therein"? Answer: They cause others to transform them through the power of karma, not through the transformation mind. It cannot be taken as a precedent. Or it can be said to be stated according to the majority. In reality, sound arises through collision; it cannot be called a transformation, because it is discontinuous. Or else sound is not separated from the four kinds of transformed visible form, smell, taste, and touch; because it is spoken of by association, it is also called a transformation. Furthermore, an ancient master said: "When King Brahmā requested the Buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma, he spoke with a mind of deportment or technical skill of the desire realm." This does not form an explanation. Just as among the twenty minds, the six minds of the form realm definitely cannot generate a mind of deportment or technical skill of the desire realm; moreover, a fruition-of-supernormal-cognition mind of the desire realm also cannot generate a mind of deportment or technical skill of the desire realm. How could King Brahmā produce the speech of deportment or technical skill of the desire realm?