俱舍論記 3.63

3.63

「如本論說至壽異熟果」者，就答中，一依宗正答、二敘異說。此下依宗正答。就中有二：此即初師，舉本論答。如本論說：云何苾芻留多壽行？答文有六：一人勝，謂阿羅漢，即聲聞極果，簡異學人。二解脫勝，成就神通，顯俱解脫，簡慧解脫。三修習勝，得心自在，顯不動性，簡時解脫。四福田勝，若於僧眾、若於別人。僧眾謂四人已上，別人謂初從慈定、無諍定、滅盡定、見道、修道起者，以諸活命緣衣鉢針筒等物隨分布施。布施謂正行施業，簡異劣田。五依止勝，施已發願，或願得自在入邊際定，或願此招異熟果，即入第四邊際靜慮。諸定上品名邊際，止、觀均等中此勢用最勝，故入此定。簡異餘定及不發願。六轉業勝，從定起已，心念口言：諸我感富異熟業，願皆轉招壽異熟果。恐不能感，故出定已復審定之。作是願已，時彼能招富異熟業，則皆轉招壽異熟果。簡不轉業。此家意說：以布施時無貪相應思，正能感現異熟命根，以邊際定等為緣，能轉富業令感壽果。此即現業感現命果。問：同分亦現感不？命與同分誰總、誰別？第一解云：同分是總，命根是別。同分非現感，命根容現感。由有總、別不同，現、非現異故。即同分長、命根短者可延，若同分亦短者命不可延。此論既言轉招壽果，以此故知現容感命。又下論云「四善容俱作，引同分唯三，除順現受，現身同分先業引故。」彼文既不言命根，故知現業不感同分，容感命根。又下論云「一業引一生，多業能圓滿。」又云「此一生言顯一同分。」又云「亦無一生多業所引，勿眾同分分分差別。雖彼一業引一同分，而彼圓滿許由多業。譬如畫師先以一色圖其形狀，後填眾彩。」彼文既不言命，明知同分是總非別，命別非總。又《婆沙》一百一十四解四業有三說。一云：生、後二業感眾同分及滿，現及不定感滿非眾同分。二云：三感眾同分及滿除現，現能感滿非眾同分。三云：四能感眾同分及滿。《婆沙》既對滿說眾同分，不言命根，故知同分總、命根是別。《婆沙》雖無評家，且以第二師為正，以餘論文於四業中皆不說現感同分故。問：若命根是別，何故《婆沙》三十一云「復次命根、眾同分是牽引果。」解云：引業非唯感總同分，亦能兼感別命根故。又問：若命別，何故《婆沙》廢立二十二根中，說命、同分名遍任持？解云：任持有二，同分是總遍任持、命是別遍任持。第二解云：同分是總，命根是別。同第一解云差別者，俱容現感。雖俱容現感，由業力故，若有同分長命短者，唯延命；若有命長同分短者，同分亦容現感。故《婆沙》解四業中第三師云：四業能感眾同分及滿。彼論既無評家，且以此師為正，故知現業容感同分。言現容感，此據延壽別勝緣說。然諸論文於延壽中不言同分者，依問答故。以問命根不問同分，故答命根不言同分。《婆沙》四業中第二師，及諸論不云現感同分者，據常途說。第三解云：同分是總、命根是別，同第一解。俱容現感，同第二解。云差別者，雖總、別不同，由彼俱容現業感故，長即齊長、短即齊短，延即同延、促即同促。第四解云：同分非現感，命根容現感，同第一解。云差別者，二俱是總。雖俱是總，由業力故，若有同分長、命根短者，命容現業感，同分非現感。故《婆沙》云「命根、同分是牽引果。」又《婆沙》廢立二十二根中說命同分名遍任持，以此故知命亦總。《婆沙》四業中對滿說眾同分、不言命者，且舉一邊，以此命根必定有故。第五解云：俱容現感，同第二解。二俱是總，同第四解。云差別者，雖俱是總、俱容現感，由業力故，若有同分長、命根短者，唯延命，若有命、長同分短者，唯延同分。第六解云：俱容現感，同第二解。二俱是總，同第四解。云差別者，既俱容現感、又同是總，長即齊長、短即齊短，延即同延、促即同促。雖作六解、初解稍勝、非但多順論文、亦於理為善。又空法師云：「命根、同分及五色根皆是總報。」此解不然，五根是總，無文說故。復有欲令至引取受用者，此即第二師，引取宿業殘壽異熟。殘業雖多，取強勝者、或取近者、或取數習者。若據此說，命非現感。餘文可知。問：豈不一業能感多生，復有一生多業感過？解云：若據常途，一業感一生，一生一業感。若據別緣，一業感多生，多業感一生。或生據同分，今說命根。若依《正理》第九，有三說，兩說同此論。更有一說云：有餘師說，彼由邊際定力，引取前生順不定受業所感壽命，令現受用。問：雖無一業引多生，而有一生多業感。解云：若據別緣，許亦無失。或生據同分，今說命根。若依《婆沙》一百二十六，有四說，三說同前。更一說云：有餘師說，有業先感壽異熟果，然有災障，由今布施邊際定力，彼災障滅壽異熟起。雖俱可轉，而彼今時不願富果，祈壽果故。問：此說還有一生多業感。解云：若據別緣，許亦無失。或生據同分，今說命根。問：上來四說，何者為正？解云：此論、《正理》及與《婆沙》既無立、破，誰敢輒定？又問：於四說中，初說現感可須布施；後三說壽有別業感，何勞布施？解云：布施雖非能正感彼壽，然為勝緣，若不行施，彼終不能引壽果故。如不入定，彼終不能引壽果故。促壽行施，準此應釋。

"As stated in the fundamental treatise... the fruition of maturation of life-span": regarding the replies, first, there is the correct reply relying on the school; second, alternative accounts are stated. Below this is the correct reply relying on the school. Herein there are two: this is the first teacher, answering by citing the fundamental treatise. As stated in the fundamental treatise: How does a bhikṣu prolong many life-activities? In the answering text there are six [points]: 1. Excellence of person, meaning an arhat, namely the ultimate fruit of the śrāvaka, distinguished from trainees. 2. Excellence of liberation: having attained supernormal faculties, demonstrating mutual liberation (ubhayatobhāga-vimukta), distinguished from liberation through wisdom (prajñā-vimukta). 3. Excellence of practice: having attained mastery of mind, demonstrating unshakeable nature (akopya-dharma), distinguished from timely liberation (samaya-vimukta). 4. Excellence of the field of merit: whether toward the community of monks or toward an individual. The community of monks means four or more people; an individual means one who has just emerged from the concentration of loving-kindness, the concentration of non-contention, the concentration of cessation, the path of seeing, or the path of cultivation, donating requisites of life such as robes, bowls, needles, and tubes according to one's capacity. Donating means correctly performing the karma of giving, distinguished from an inferior field. 5. Excellence of support: after giving, making an aspiration—either aspiring to obtain mastery and enter the boundary concentration (prāntakoṭika-dhyāna), or aspiring that this karmic act incur a fruition of maturation—and thus entering the fourth boundary absorption. The highest grade among concentrations is called "boundary"; among those where cessation and insight are balanced, this one's efficacy is the most supreme, hence one enters this concentration. This is distinguished from other concentrations and from not making an aspiration. 6. Excellence of transforming karma: having emerged from the concentration, with thought in mind and words spoken, one states: "Whatever karma of mine would incur the maturation of wealth, may it all be transformed to incur the fruition of maturation of life-span!" Fearing that it might not be incurred, after emerging from the concentration one determines it again. Having made this aspiration, at that time whatever karma could incur the maturation of wealth is completely transformed to incur the fruition of maturation of life-span. This is distinguished from not transforming karma. The intent of this master's explanation is: the volition associated with non-greed at the time of giving directly incurs a present maturation of the life-faculty, and taking the boundary concentration and the like as conditions, it can transform wealth-karma so that it incurs the fruition of life-span. This is present karma incurring a present life-fruition. Question: Is the nikāya-sabhāga (common character) also incurred in the present? Between the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga, which is general and which is specific? The first explanation states: Nikāya-sabhāga is general; the life-faculty is specific. Nikāya-sabhāga is not incurred in the present, while the life-faculty can be incurred in the present. Because there is a difference of general and specific, and a distinction of present and non-present. Thus, if the nikāya-sabhāga is long and the life-faculty is short, it can be prolonged; if the nikāya-sabhāga is also short, the life-span cannot be prolonged. Since this treatise speaks of transforming [karma] to incur the fruition of life-span, we know from this that the life-faculty can be incurred in the present. Furthermore, the lower treatise says: "The four wholesome [karmas] can be performed together; what projects the nikāya-sabhāga is only three, excluding [karma] to be experienced in the present, because the present body's nikāya-sabhāga was projected by past karma." Since that text does not mention the life-faculty, we know that present karma does not incur the nikāya-sabhāga, but can incur the life-faculty. Furthermore, the lower treatise says: "One karma projects one lifetime; multiple karmas can bring it to completion." It also says: "This phrase 'one lifetime' signifies one nikāya-sabhāga." It also says: "Nor is one lifetime projected by multiple karmas, lest the nikāya-sabhāga have part-by-part distinctions. Although that single karma projects one nikāya-sabhāga, its completion is admitted to be due to multiple karmas. Just as a painter first sketches the outline with a single colour, and afterwards fills in the various pigments." Since that text does not mention the life-faculty, it is clearly known that nikāya-sabhāga is general and not specific, whereas the life-faculty is specific and not general. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 114, in explaining the four karmas, presents three views. The first says: Karma to be experienced in the next life and karma to be experienced in subsequent lives incur the nikāya-sabhāga and completion; present karma and indefinite karma incur completion, not the nikāya-sabhāga. The second says: Three incur the nikāya-sabhāga and completion, excluding the present; the present can incur completion, not the nikāya-sabhāga. The third says: All four can incur the nikāya-sabhāga and completion. Since the Mahāvibhāṣā contrasts the nikāya-sabhāga with completion and does not mention the life-faculty, we know that nikāya-sabhāga is general and the life-faculty is specific. Although the Mahāvibhāṣā does not evaluate which is definitive, for now we take the second teacher as correct, because other treatise texts among the four karmas never say that the present incurs the nikāya-sabhāga. Question: If the life-faculty is specific, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 31, say: "Furthermore, the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga are projective fruitions"? The explanation states: Projective karma incurs not only the general nikāya-sabhāga, but can also concurrently incur the specific life-faculty. Another question: If the life-faculty is specific, why, in establishing the twenty-two faculties in the Mahāvibhāṣā, are the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga both called "pervasively sustaining"? The explanation states: There are two sustainings: nikāya-sabhāga is general pervasive sustaining, while the life-faculty is specific pervasive sustaining. The second explanation states: Nikāya-sabhāga is general; the life-faculty is specific. It agrees with the first explanation that the distinction is: both can be incurred in the present. Although both can be incurred in the present, due to the power of karma, if there is a case where the nikāya-sabhāga is long and the life-faculty is short, one prolongs only the life-span; if there is a case where the life-faculty is long and the nikāya-sabhāga is short, the nikāya-sabhāga can also be incurred in the present. Therefore, the third teacher in the Mahāvibhāṣā's explanation of the four karmas states: "Four karmas can incur the nikāya-sabhāga and completion." Since that treatise has no evaluator, for now we take this teacher as correct; hence we know that present karma can incur the nikāya-sabhāga. Saying that it can be incurred in the present is said based on the special, supreme condition of prolonging life-span. However, the reason the various treatises do not mention the nikāya-sabhāga when discussing prolonging life-span is in accordance with question and answer: because the question was about the life-faculty and not the nikāya-sabhāga, the answer discusses the life-faculty without mentioning the nikāya-sabhāga. The second teacher in the Mahāvibhāṣā's four karmas and the various treatises not mentioning present incurring of nikāya-sabhāga are stated according to the ordinary rule. The third explanation states: Nikāya-sabhāga is general and the life-faculty is specific, agreeing with the first explanation. Both can be incurred in the present, agreeing with the second explanation. The distinction is: although general and specific differ, because both can be incurred by present karma, when one is long, both are equally long; when one is short, both are equally short; when prolonged, both are prolonged together; when curtailed, both are curtailed together. The fourth explanation states: Nikāya-sabhāga is not incurred in the present, and the life-faculty can be incurred in the present, agreeing with the first explanation. The distinction is: both are general. Although both are general, due to the power of karma, if there is a case where the nikāya-sabhāga is long and the life-faculty is short, the life-faculty can be incurred by present karma, while the nikāya-sabhāga is not incurred in the present. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says: "The life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga are projective fruitions." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, in establishing the twenty-two faculties, says that the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga are called pervasively sustaining; from this we know that the life-faculty is also general. When the Mahāvibhāṣā contrasts nikāya-sabhāga with completion among the four karmas without mentioning the life-faculty, it merely mentions one side, because this life-faculty is necessarily present. The fifth explanation states: Both can be incurred in the present, agreeing with the second explanation. Both are general, agreeing with the fourth explanation. The distinction is: although both are general and both can be incurred in the present, due to the power of karma, if there is a case where the nikāya-sabhāga is long and the life-faculty is short, one prolongs only the life-span; if there is a case where the life-faculty is long and the nikāya-sabhāga is short, one prolongs only the nikāya-sabhāga. The sixth explanation states: Both can be incurred in the present, agreeing with the second explanation. Both are general, agreeing with the fourth explanation. The distinction is: since both can be incurred in the present and both are general, if long, both are equally long; if short, both are equally short; if prolonged, both are prolonged together; if curtailed, both are curtailed together. Although six explanations are made, the first explanation is slightly superior: not only does it accord with more treatise passages, it is also better in reasoning. Furthermore, Dharma Master Kong said: "The life-faculty, nikāya-sabhāga, and five physical faculties are all general retributions." This explanation is incorrect: that the five faculties are general has no supporting textual statement. "There are also those who wish that... draw forth and experience it": this is the second teacher, who draws forth the remaining maturation of life-span from past karma. Although remaining karmas are many, one takes the strongest, or takes the most proximate, or takes that which was repeatedly practiced. According to this explanation, life-span is not incurred in the present. The rest of the text is understandable. Question: Is it not the fault that one karma can incur multiple lifetimes, or that one lifetime is incurred by multiple karmas? The explanation states: According to the ordinary rule, one karma incurs one lifetime, and one lifetime is incurred by one karma. According to special conditions, one karma incurs multiple lifetimes, and multiple karmas incur one lifetime. Or, "lifetime" is based on nikāya-sabhāga, whereas now we speak of the life-faculty. According to Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 9, there are three accounts, two of which agree with this treatise. There is another account that says: Other teachers say that by the power of the boundary concentration, he draws forth the life-span incurred by karma of previous lifetimes that was to be experienced indefinitely, causing it to be experienced in the present. Question: Although there is no single karma projecting multiple lifetimes, there is one lifetime incurred by multiple karmas. The explanation states: If based on special conditions, admitting it is also without error. Or, "lifetime" is based on nikāya-sabhāga, whereas now we speak of the life-faculty. According to the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 126, there are four accounts, three of which agree with the above. Another account says: Other teachers say there is karma that previously incurred the maturation-fruition of life-span, but there were calamity-obstructions; by the power of the present giving and boundary concentration, those calamity-obstructions are eliminated and the maturation of life-span arises. Although both could be transformed, at the present time he does not wish for the fruition of wealth, because he prays for the fruition of life-span. Question: In this explanation, there is still one lifetime incurred by multiple karmas. The explanation states: If based on special conditions, admitting it is also without error. Or, "lifetime" is based on nikāya-sabhāga, whereas now we speak of the life-faculty. Question: Among the four explanations above, which one is correct? The explanation states: Since this treatise, the Nyāyānusāra, and the Mahāvibhāṣā offer neither establishment nor refutation, who would dare arbitrate arbitrarily? Another question: Among the four explanations, the first explanation requires giving because it is incurred in the present; for the latter three explanations, the life-span is incurred by a separate karma, so why go to the trouble of giving? The explanation states: Although giving cannot directly incur that life-span, it serves as a supreme condition; if one did not practice giving, one could ultimately never draw forth the fruition of life-span. Just as if one did not enter concentration, one could ultimately never draw forth the fruition of life-span. Practicing giving to curtail life-span should be explained on this analogy.