俱舍論記 28.132

28.132

「頌曰至以下劣故」者，釋。生上三地起下三識及發表心，皆初定繫。生上起下，如起下地化心，故能見、聞、觸及發表。此四皆是無覆無記。不起下染，已離染故。不起下善，以下劣故。無記雖劣，非是正厭，中庸故起。問：生上起下無覆無記，四無記中是何無記？泰法師解云：「然眼、耳、身識雖非化心無記，是化心類，定他繫故，總名禪果心。故《雜心．定品》云『不起欲界，非禪果故。』然變化心亦名禪果，故《雜心．擇品》廣心中，解無色界有四心，無變化心、無威儀心云『離禪果、威儀，餘四在無色。』以此文證，起三識身是化心種類，故禪果無記攝。若起語業，唯變化心。故前論云『若化、若所化人，在三定上，則以初定心語。色界無工巧心，不可以工巧心語。以聲無行、住、坐、臥相，不可以威儀心語。』以前論云四識緣威儀故，以此理推，身生三定但以化心語。若起身表業，通威儀、變化。問：何故得知化心起身、語表？答：如《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。此心若緣所變化事以總緣故，即有緣法捨意近行。即通果心俱，此心容有總別緣故。』」今解：不然。生上三定起下諸識，若起下身識，唯是威儀心、或是緣威儀心、或是似威儀心。若起下眼識，修得者通果攝，泛爾起者是威儀心、或是緣威儀心、或是似威儀心。若起下耳識，修得者通果攝，泛爾起者唯是似威儀心。若起下發業心，若泛爾發身、語業者，是威儀心。威儀心尚得通緣十二處，能發語業理亦應得。又空法師章解威儀五蘊中云「色聚有五，謂五塵。問：若說威儀具有五塵，何故《婆沙》、《俱舍》并說唯有四塵，除聲。解云：行、住、坐、臥名威儀。聲非威儀正體，所以二論說無。今據威儀心發聲義，所以說有（已上空解）。」若上地化人發非身、語業，即起下通果心發，非變化心。泰法師若將修得天眼、天耳二識是化心類同名通果，容有此理。若將泛爾起眼、耳、身、識名通果心，良謂不然。准諸論，二十心中通果心唯與定心相生，豈有泛爾起下三識皆入定耶？《雜心》云「不起欲界，非禪果故」者，今更委檢《雜心．定品》，身生上地起初定三識，不起欲界中，云「非欲界、非修果故」，不言禪果。此即誤引證。言修果者，定地繫故，總名修果。若言修果即禪果者，定地繫故總名禪果。不同化心名為禪果，通果心攝。又引《婆沙》證化心發身、語業者，還是未達通果心寬、變化心狹。謂諸通果皆是化心，處處文中作斯異解，於先已破，義便復來。又空法師云「生上三定起初定威儀三識及威儀發業心」者，亦非盡理。若據泛爾起者，無有妨。若據二通及化人發業皆名威儀，此即不然。准前應破。

"The verse says ... because it is inferior": this is the explanation. When reborn in the upper three levels, the arising of the lower three consciousnesses and the mind that produces informative [karma] are all bound to the first dhyāna. Reborn above and producing what is below is like producing the mind of magical creation (nirmāṇa-citta) of a lower level; hence one is able to see, hear, touch, and produce informative [karma]. These four are all unobscured-indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta). One does not produce lower defilement, because one has already separated from defilement. One does not produce lower wholesome [minds], because they are inferior. Although the indeterminate is inferior, it is not something directly reviled, and being neutral, it arises. Question: When one reborn above produces a lower unobscured-indeterminate mind, among the four indeterminates, which indeterminate is it? Master Tai explains: "Although the eye-, ear-, and body-consciousnesses are not the indeterminate of the mind of magical creation, they are of the same kind as the mind of magical creation, because they are bound to a different absorption; they are generally called 'minds that are fruits of dhyāna'. Thus the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya*, 'Samādhi Chapter', says: 'They do not arise in the desire realm, because they are not fruits of dhyāna.' But the mind of magical creation is also called a fruit of dhyāna; thus the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya*, 'Discrimination Chapter', in the extensive section on minds, explaining that the formless realm has four minds, lacking the mind of magical creation and lacking the mind of deportment, says: 'Apart from the fruit of dhyāna and deportment, the other four are in the formless.' Corroborated by this text, the arising of the groups of the three consciousnesses is of the kind of the mind of magical creation; therefore it is subsumed under the fruit of dhyāna indeterminate. If one gives rise to vocal karma, it is exclusively the mind of magical creation. Therefore the earlier treatise says: 'Whether a magically created person or an emanated person is in the upper three concentrations, they speak by means of the mind of the first dhyāna. The form realm lacks the craft-and-skills mind; one cannot speak with a craft-and-skills mind. Because sound lacks the marks of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, one cannot speak with a mind of deportment.' Because the earlier treatise says that the four consciousnesses take deportment as their object, inferring by this principle, one whose body is reborn in the upper three concentrations speaks solely by means of the mind of magical creation. If one gives rise to bodily informative karma, it admits of both deportment and magical creation. Question: How is it known that the mind of magical creation gives rise to bodily and vocal informative [karma]? Answer: As the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 139, says: 'If one is reborn in the first dhyāna, one achieves one of the desire realm, namely mental exploration of equanimity with phenomena [as object], which is accompanied by the mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power (abhijñā-phala-citta), because it arises taking form and so forth generally as its objective sphere. Some say: that [person] achieves three, namely mental explorations of equanimity with form, sound, and phenomena [as objects], which are accompanied by the mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power. If this mind takes the bodily informative [karma] that is produced as its object, then there is mental exploration of equanimity with form [as object]. If this mind takes the vocal informative [karma] that is produced as its object, then there is mental exploration of equanimity with sound [as object]. If this mind takes the magically created matter as its object, because it takes it generally, then there is mental exploration of equanimity with phenomena [as object]. It is accompanied by the mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power, because this mind admits of both general and particular objects.'" Now I explain: It is not so. When reborn in the upper three concentrations one gives rise to the lower consciousnesses: if one gives rise to the lower body-consciousness, it is exclusively a mind of deportment, or a mind taking deportment as its object, or a mind resembling deportment. If one gives rise to the lower eye-consciousness: that attained through cultivation is subsumed under the fruit of supernormal cognitive power; that which arises incidentally is a mind of deportment, or a mind taking deportment as its object, or a mind resembling deportment. If one gives rise to the lower ear-consciousness: that attained through cultivation is subsumed under the fruit of supernormal cognitive power; that which arises incidentally is exclusively a mind resembling deportment. If one gives rise to the lower mind that produces karma: if one incidentally produces bodily or vocal karma, it is a mind of deportment. The mind of deportment still can universally take the twelve āyatanas as its object; by principle, it should also be able to produce vocal karma. Furthermore, Master Kong's essay, in explaining the five skandhas of deportment, says: "Material form has five aggregates, namely the five sense objects. Question: If it is said that deportment completely possesses the five sense objects, why do both the *Mahāvibhāṣā* and the *Kośa* state that there are only four sense objects, excluding sound? The explanation is: walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are called deportment. Sound is not the direct substance of deportment; that is why the two treatises say it is absent. Now, based on the meaning that the mind of deportment produces sound, it is stated to be present (the above is Kong's explanation)." If an emanated person of an upper level produces karma that is not bodily or vocal, they produce it by giving rise to the lower mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power, not the mind of magical creation. If Master Tai takes the cultivated divine eye and divine ear consciousnesses to be of the kind of the mind of magical creation and likewise calls them fruits of supernormal cognitive power, there is plausibility to this principle. But if he takes the eye-, ear-, and body-consciousnesses that arise incidentally to be minds that are fruits of supernormal cognitive power, I truly consider this not to be so. In accordance with the treatises, among the twenty minds, the mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power is generated only in conjunction with a meditative mind; how could it be that whenever the lower three consciousnesses arise incidentally, one enters concentration in every case? As for what the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* says: "They do not arise in the desire realm, because they are not fruits of dhyāna"—now, checking further and in detail the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya*, 'Samādhi Chapter', regarding the physical rebirth in an upper level giving rise to the three consciousnesses of the first dhyāna and not giving rise to those of the desire realm, it says "because they are not of the desire realm and not fruits of cultivation (bhāvanā-phala)"; it does not say "fruits of dhyāna". This is thus a mistaken citation as proof. When it says "fruits of cultivation", because they are bound to a level of concentration, they are generally called fruits of cultivation. If one says that a fruit of cultivation is just a fruit of dhyāna, because it is bound to a level of concentration, it is generally called a fruit of dhyāna. It is not like the mind of magical creation being called a fruit of dhyāna and subsumed under the mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power. Furthermore, in citing the *Mahāvibhāṣā* to prove that the mind of magical creation produces bodily and vocal karma, this is still a failure to understand that the mind that is the fruit of supernormal cognitive power is broad, while the mind of magical creation is narrow. Supposing that all fruits of supernormal cognitive power are minds of magical creation, he makes this aberrant explanation in passages throughout; this has already been refuted earlier, and as the topic arose, it has been addressed again. Furthermore, as for Master Kong saying that "reborn in the upper three concentrations, one gives rise to the three consciousnesses of deportment of the first dhyāna and the karma-producing mind of deportment," this is also not completely accurate. If one speaks of what arises incidentally, there is no objection. But if one takes the two supernormal powers and the production of karma by an emanated person as all being named deportment, this is not so. It should be refuted following the preceding.