俱舍論記 28.108

28.108

「非三定樂至是喜非樂」者，說一切有部破。非前三定樂皆可名喜受，二阿笈摩分明證故。阿笈摩，此云傳，謂三世諸佛所傳說故。舊云阿含，訛也。第一經云：漸無餘滅憂等五根。於初定中無餘滅憂。第二定中無餘滅苦，第三定中無餘滅喜，於第四定中無餘滅樂。既喜、樂別滅，明知第三定樂非是喜受。《婆沙》八十一釋云「如契經說：初靜慮憂根滅，第二靜慮苦根滅。問：離欲染時斷憂及苦，契經何故作是說耶？答：依過對治，故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根，而未名為過苦對治。於初靜慮得離染時，過苦對治，故說苦滅。苦對治者，謂初靜慮。復次依過族姓及苦所依，故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根，而未過苦所依、族姓，於初靜慮得離染時，過苦所依及苦族姓，故說苦滅。所依、族姓，謂諸識身。問：離欲染位雖斷憂根，而未過彼對治、所依及彼族姓，不應說憂初靜慮滅。答：憂根對治、所依、族姓皆在意識。既與憂根同在意識，故正斷時即說彼滅。苦根所依及苦族姓，不與對治同在一識，故過對治、所依、族姓方說苦滅。有作是說：第二靜慮苦根滅者，謂尋、伺滅。以諸賢聖於尋、伺中發生苦想。過諸異生厭地獄苦能生苦想，故名苦根（已上論文）。」第二經云：第四靜慮斷樂斷苦。先離第二靜慮染時喜沒，先離欲染時憂沒。此經既說樂後斷、喜先沒，故知第三靜慮必無喜根，但是其樂。由此二經證知，喜受是喜非樂。《婆沙》八十一釋第二經云「斷樂者，問：得第四靜慮時，總離第三靜慮諸有漏法，何故但說斷樂耶？答：以樂為上首，總離第三靜慮諸有漏法，故偏說樂。復次以樂難斷、難破、難可越度，故偏說之。復次以樂多諸過患、熾盛堅牢，是故偏說。復次以樂離第三靜慮染時，極為障礙，繫縛留難如暴獄卒，故偏說之。復次諸瑜伽師專為對治樂故修第四靜慮，是故偏說。復次諸瑜伽師憎厭樂故總離第三靜慮，故偏說之。復次樂上地無，餘法容有，故偏說樂。由如是等種種因緣，唯說斷樂。斷苦者，問：離欲染時修觀行者已斷苦根，何故今離第三靜慮染時乃說斷苦？答：此於已斷說名為斷。謂於遠事而說近聲，如已來者亦說今來，如說大王從何處來。復次依雙法盡俱說斷聲。言雙法者，謂苦與樂。離欲染時雖苦已盡而樂未盡，今離第三靜慮染已苦、樂俱盡，俱說斷聲。復次斷樂者，謂斷第三靜慮樂根。斷苦者，謂斷彼相應心、心所法。復次斷樂者，謂斷第三靜慮樂根。斷苦者，謂斷第三靜慮入、出息。謂賢聖者於入、出息生於苦想，過諸異生於無間獄所起苦想。復次斷樂者，謂斷第三靜慮樂根。斷苦者，謂即斷彼樂根，如說無常故苦。先喜憂沒者，離欲染時憂根已沒，離第二靜慮染時喜根已沒，是故說今先喜憂沒。」

"[Pleasure in the first three dhyānas is not all joy] up to [it is joy and not pleasure]": this is the Sarvāstivāda's refutation. It is not the case that the pleasure of the first three dhyānas can all be called the feeling of joy, because two āgamas clearly prove this. Āgama is translated here as "transmission", referring to that which is transmitted and spoken by all Buddhas of the three times. The old rendering āhan is an error. The first sūtra says: "The five faculties of grief and so on are gradually extinguished without remainder. In the first dhyāna grief is extinguished without remainder; in the second dhyāna pain is extinguished without remainder; in the third dhyāna joy is extinguished without remainder; and in the fourth dhyāna pleasure is extinguished without remainder." Since joy and pleasure are extinguished separately, we clearly know that the pleasure of the third dhyāna is not the feeling of joy. The Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 81, explains: "As a sūtra says: 'In the first dhyāna the grief faculty is extinguished; in the second dhyāna the pain faculty is extinguished.' Question: Since grief and pain are abandoned when abandoning attachment to desire, why does the sūtra speak this way? Answer: It speaks thus in terms of passing beyond their antidote. That is, although in the stage of abandoning attachment to desire one abandons the pain faculty, one is not yet said to have passed beyond the antidote to pain. When one attains detachment from the first dhyāna, one passes beyond the antidote to pain; therefore it is said that pain is extinguished. The antidote to pain refers to the first dhyāna. Furthermore, it speaks thus in terms of passing beyond its lineage and the basis of pain. That is, although in the stage of abandoning attachment to desire one abandons the pain faculty, one has not yet passed beyond the basis and lineage of pain. When one attains detachment from the first dhyāna, one passes beyond the basis of pain and the lineage of pain; therefore it is said that pain is extinguished. The basis and lineage refer to the collections of consciousness. Question: Although in the stage of abandoning attachment to desire one abandons the grief faculty, one has not yet passed beyond its antidote, its basis, and its lineage; so grief should not be said to be extinguished in the first dhyāna. Answer: The antidote, basis, and lineage of the grief faculty all reside in mental consciousness. Since they reside together with the grief faculty in mental consciousness, at the very moment it is abandoned it is said to be extinguished. The basis of the pain faculty and the lineage of pain do not reside together with the antidote in the same consciousness; therefore only upon passing beyond the antidote, the basis, and the lineage is pain said to be extinguished. Some say: That the pain faculty is extinguished in the second dhyāna means that vitarka and vicāra are extinguished, because the noble ones give rise to the notion of pain regarding vitarka and vicāra. This notion of pain surpasses ordinary worldlings' revulsion toward the pain of hell, so it is called the pain faculty (end of śāstra passage)." The second sūtra says: "In the fourth dhyāna, pleasure is abandoned and pain is abandoned; previously, upon detachment from the second dhyāna, joy vanished; previously, upon detachment from desire, grief vanished." Since this sūtra states that pleasure is abandoned later and joy vanished earlier, we know that the third dhyāna definitely lacks the joy faculty and has only pleasure. From these two sūtras it is proven that the feeling of joy is joy and not pleasure. The Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 81, explains the second sūtra: "Regarding 'abandoning pleasure': Question: When attaining the fourth dhyāna, one detaches generally from all sāsrava dharmas of the third dhyāna; why does it speak only of abandoning pleasure? Answer: Because pleasure is the foremost, one detaches generally from all sāsrava dharmas of the third dhyāna, and therefore pleasure alone is mentioned. Furthermore, because pleasure is difficult to abandon, difficult to break through, and difficult to cross beyond, it is mentioned specifically. Furthermore, because pleasure has many faults, is blazing and firm, it is mentioned specifically. Furthermore, when detaching from the third dhyāna, pleasure is an extreme obstacle, binding and obstructing like a violent jailer; therefore it is mentioned specifically. Furthermore, yoga practitioners cultivate the fourth dhyāna specifically as an antidote to pleasure; therefore it is mentioned specifically. Furthermore, yoga practitioners loathe and detest pleasure and so detach generally from the third dhyāna; therefore it is mentioned specifically. Furthermore, pleasure does not exist in the higher stages, whereas other dharmas may exist; therefore pleasure alone is mentioned. Due to various causes and conditions such as these, only the abandonment of pleasure is spoken of. Regarding 'abandoning pain': Question: When detaching from desire, practitioners of contemplation have already abandoned the pain faculty; why does it only now speak of abandoning pain when detaching from the third dhyāna? Answer: This speaks of abandoning with respect to what has already been abandoned. That is, it applies a proximate expression to a distant matter, just as one who has already arrived is also spoken of as arriving now, as when saying 'From where does the Great King come?' Furthermore, in reliance on the exhaustion of a pair of dharmas, both are designated with the word 'abandoned'. As for the pair of dharmas, they are pain and pleasure. When detaching from desire, although pain is already exhausted, pleasure is not yet exhausted; now, having detached from the third dhyāna, both pain and pleasure are exhausted, so both are designated with the word 'abandoned'. Furthermore, abandoning pleasure means abandoning the pleasure faculty of the third dhyāna; abandoning pain means abandoning its associated mind and mental factors. Furthermore, abandoning pleasure means abandoning the pleasure faculty of the third dhyāna; abandoning pain means abandoning the inhalation and exhalation of the third dhyāna, for the noble ones give rise to the notion of pain regarding inhalation and exhalation, which surpasses the notion of pain arisen in ordinary worldlings toward the Avīci hell. Furthermore, abandoning pleasure means abandoning the pleasure faculty of the third dhyāna; abandoning pain means abandoning that very pleasure faculty, as it is said that 'what is impermanent is painful'. As for 'previously joy and grief vanished': when detaching from desire, the grief faculty had already vanished; when detaching from the second dhyāna, the joy faculty had already vanished; therefore it says that previously joy and grief vanished."