俱舍論記 3.80

3.80

「餘皆通二至餘皆異熟」者，餘十二根皆通二類。七有色根若所長養則非異熟，餘皆異熟。四受即是苦、樂、喜、捨。意及四受，若善、染污，非異熟。言威儀路、工巧處者，此舉所依顯能依也。名如下釋。意及捨受，若威儀路、工巧處，非異熟。問：何故不通苦、樂、喜根？答：《婆沙》一百四十四解苦根通三性中云「云何無記？謂無記作意相應苦根。此復云何？謂異熟生（已上論文）。」《婆沙》苦根，四無記中但云異熟，不云餘三，明知苦根不通威儀、工巧。苦根既不通威儀、工巧、準知樂根亦不通彼。喜根有二、一者分別、二者任運。若分別強者，唯同憂根，不通無記。若任運者，四無記中唯是異熟，不通餘三。以此准知，但是威儀、工巧處心，唯是捨根，不通苦、樂、喜根。又解：意及喜、捨，若威儀路、工巧處，非異熟。憂強分別，可唯善、惡。喜通無記，有非過強，復唯意地。故知喜亦通威儀、工巧，但不通苦、樂。苦、樂五識不能發業。第三定樂雖在意地，非尋、伺俱，亦非發業。又解：意、苦、樂、喜、捨，若威儀路、工巧處，非異熟。若據起威儀、工巧心，六識之中唯意識，四受之中唯喜、捨，不通苦、樂，以苦、樂受不能發業，如前釋。若據威儀路加行心、緣威儀路心亦通四識，似威儀路心亦通五識。若據工巧處加行心、緣工巧處心、似工巧處心亦通五識，故言威儀、工巧亦通苦、樂。問：何故《婆沙》苦根但言異熟，不言威儀、工巧？解云：《婆沙》據起威儀、工巧心說，故不云苦根通威儀、工巧。今據加行、緣、似，故亦說通。言加行、緣、似者，若四識是威儀路加行，名威儀路加行心。或緣威儀路，名緣威儀路心。若五識泛緣外境，名似威儀路心。又如二定已上汎爾起下三識，隨其所應加行、緣、似名威儀路心。身生上地不得起下善、染污心。異熟生心異地不起，汎借起者復非通果。上地復無工巧，又非意地，非是能起威儀路心。不是加行、緣、似威儀路心，更是何心？若五識是工巧處加行名工巧處心，或緣工巧處名緣工巧處心，若汎爾緣外境名似工巧處心。言能變化者，意及捨受若能變化，非異熟，不通苦、樂、喜根。問：苦唯五識，可言不通。樂、喜亦通意地，何故不說？解云：諸論解十八意近行中，皆云「若生色界，唯成欲界一捨法近行，謂通果心俱（已上論文）。」以此故知不通喜、樂。又解：意、喜、樂、捨若能變化，非異熟，但非苦根，唯五識故。問：若通喜、樂，意近行中生上成下，何故不言？解云：捨是中庸，起時稍易，生上可言成下。喜、樂非是中庸，起時稍難，生上不能成下，故但言捨不言喜、樂，以實餘時亦有成就。或可此文應言通果，而言能變化者，且舉通果心中一分，如解非得言異生性。通果有二：一在意地，如變化心；二在五識，如眼、耳通。問：能變化心與受相應，可如前釋。未審二通何受相應，為樂？為捨？若云樂相應者，異生生第四定起下二通，應成下樂，若成下樂即違論文，故下論云「樂根異生生第四定及無色界，定不成就（已上論文）。」如何得與樂相應耶？若言捨相應者，論說五通依四根本定，又准《正理》、《婆沙》，根本地中無有捨受（引文如下），如何得與捨相應耶？解云：二通但與捨根相應。問：前難善通，後難云何？解云：論說二通依根本定者，意說二通依本定得，非即是彼根本地攝。如欲化心依本定得，非本定收，二通亦爾。或據二通無間道說，或據二通所依根說，言依本定亦無有失。若要執文即為定者，論說五通依四靜慮，二通應亦上三定收。又解：二通樂、捨相應。問：前之二難云何釋通？解云：捨根雖非根本地攝，依根本得，如前通釋。身生上地起下二通，但捨非樂，捨是中庸起時稍易，故生上起下。樂非中庸起時稍難，故生上不起下。又如異生生第四定，汎爾起下三識，但起捨根不起樂根。二通亦爾，故與彼文皆不相違。又空法師亦說二通樂、捨相應。言隨其所應者，三無記心受相應異，故言隨應，非是異熟。餘皆異熟。

On "The rest all encompass both [classes] ... the rest are all karmic maturation": the remaining twelve faculties all encompass both classes. If the seven faculties with physical form are nourished, they are not karmic maturation; the rest are karmic maturation. The four sensations are just suffering, pleasure, joy, and equanimity. The mental faculty and the four sensations, if wholesome or defiled, are not karmic maturation. When it mentions "postures and arts and crafts," this cites what is supported to reveal what supports it. Their names are explained below. The mental faculty and the faculty of equanimity, if [associated with] postures or arts and crafts, are not karmic maturation. Question: Why do they not encompass the faculties of suffering, pleasure, and joy? Answer: In fascicle 144 of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, explaining that the faculty of suffering encompasses the three natures, it says: "What is indeterminate? It refers to the faculty of suffering associated with indeterminate mental application. Furthermore, what is this? It refers to that arisen from karmic maturation" (the quotation ends here). The *Mahāvibhāṣā*, among the four indeterminate [states of] the faculty of suffering, only mentions karmic maturation and does not mention the other three; one clearly knows that the faculty of suffering does not encompass postures and crafts. Since the faculty of suffering does not encompass postures and crafts, one can infer that the faculty of pleasure likewise does not encompass them. The faculty of joy has two [kinds]: first, conceptual; second, spontaneous. If the conceptual [aspect] is strong, it is identical only to the faculty of grief and does not encompass the indeterminate. If it is spontaneous, among the four indeterminate states it is only karmic maturation, not encompassing the other three. Inferring from this, whatever is a mind of postures or arts and crafts is only the faculty of equanimity, not encompassing the faculties of suffering, pleasure, or joy. Another explanation: The mental faculty, as well as joy and equanimity, if [associated with] postures or arts and crafts, are not karmic maturation. Grief involves strong conceptual discrimination, so it can only be wholesome or unwholesome. Joy encompasses the indeterminate, is not excessively strong, and moreover belongs exclusively to the mental level. Thus one knows that joy also encompasses postures and crafts, but simply does not encompass suffering and pleasure. Suffering and pleasure belong to the five [sense] consciousnesses and cannot initiate action. Although the pleasure of the third dhyāna is on the mental level, it is not accompanied by vitarka and vicāra and likewise does not initiate action. Yet another explanation: The mental faculty, suffering, pleasure, joy, and equanimity, if [associated with] postures or arts and crafts, are not karmic maturation. If based on the mind that initiates postures and crafts, among the six consciousnesses it is only the mental consciousness, and among the four sensations it is only joy and equanimity, not encompassing suffering and pleasure, because the sensations of suffering and pleasure cannot initiate action, as explained before. If based on the mind of preparatory application for postures or the mind observing postures, it also encompasses the four consciousnesses; a mind resembling postures also encompasses the five consciousnesses. If based on the mind of preparatory application for arts and crafts, the mind observing arts and crafts, and the mind resembling arts and crafts, it also encompasses the five consciousnesses; hence it is said that postures and crafts also encompass suffering and pleasure. Question: Why does the *Mahāvibhāṣā* only mention karmic maturation for the faculty of suffering, and not postures or crafts? The explanation says: The *Mahāvibhāṣā* speaks on the basis of the mind that initiates postures and crafts, and therefore does not say that the faculty of suffering encompasses postures and crafts. Here it speaks on the basis of preparatory application, observation, and resemblance, and therefore also states that it encompasses them. As for "preparatory application, observation, and resemblance": if four consciousnesses serve as preparatory application for postures, they are called the mind of preparatory application for postures. Or, if they observe postures, they are called the mind observing postures. If five consciousnesses casually observe external objects, they are called the mind resembling postures. Furthermore, as when one from the second dhyāna or above casually arouses the lower three consciousnesses, corresponding appropriately to preparatory application, observation, and resemblance, they are called minds of postures. Being born in a higher stage, one cannot arouse a wholesome or defiled mind of a lower stage. A mind arisen from karmic maturation cannot be aroused in a different stage, and what is casually borrowed and aroused is furthermore not an outcome of supernormal knowledge. In the higher stages there are furthermore no arts and crafts, and it is not on the mental level; it is not a mind capable of initiating postures. If it were not a mind of preparatory application, observation, or resembling postures, what other mind could it be? If five consciousnesses are preparatory applications for arts and crafts, they are called minds of arts and crafts; or if they observe arts and crafts, they are called minds observing arts and crafts; if they casually observe external objects, they are called minds resembling arts and crafts. As for "capable of supernormal transformation": if the mental faculty and the sensation of equanimity are capable of supernormal transformation, they are not karmic maturation, not encompassing the faculties of suffering, pleasure, and joy. Question: Suffering belongs only to the five consciousnesses, so it can be granted that it does not encompass it. Pleasure and joy also encompass the mental level; why are they not mentioned? The explanation says: In the various treatises explaining the eighteen mental applications, all say: "If born in the rūpadhātu, one only achieves one application of equanimity of the kāmadhātu, namely that associated with the mind that is the outcome of supernormal knowledge" (the quotation ends here). By this, one knows that they do not encompass joy and pleasure. Another explanation: The mental faculty, joy, pleasure, and equanimity, if capable of supernormal transformation, are not karmic maturation, but are simply not the faculty of suffering, because that belongs only to the five consciousnesses. Question: If they encompass joy and pleasure, why do the mental applications not mention achieving the lower when born in the higher? The explanation says: Equanimity is neutral and arises somewhat more easily, so when born in the higher one can be said to achieve the lower. Joy and pleasure are not neutral and arise with somewhat more difficulty, so when born in the higher one cannot achieve the lower; hence only equanimity is mentioned, not joy and pleasure, because in fact at other times they are also achieved. Or perhaps this text should have said "the outcome of supernormal knowledge," and saying "capable of supernormal transformation" merely cites a portion of the mind that is the outcome of supernormal knowledge, just as when explaining non-possession one speaks of "the state of an ordinary worldling." Outcomes of supernormal knowledge are of two kinds: first, on the mental level, such as the mind of transformation; second, in the five consciousnesses, such as the supernormal knowledges of the divine eye and ear. Question: That the mind capable of transformation is associated with sensation may be as explained before. But one may wonder: with which sensation are the two supernormal knowledges associated? With pleasure? Or with equanimity? If one says they are associated with pleasure, then an ordinary worldling born in the fourth dhyāna who arouses the lower two supernormal knowledges would achieve lower pleasure; and if he achieves lower pleasure, that contradicts the treatise text, for the treatise below says: "An ordinary worldling born in the fourth dhyāna and the ārūpyadhātu definitely does not achieve the faculty of pleasure" (the quotation ends here). How could it be associated with pleasure? If one says they are associated with equanimity, the treatise states that the five supernormal knowledges rely on the four fundamental dhyānas; furthermore, according to the *Nyāyānusāra* and *Mahāvibhāṣā*, there is no sensation of equanimity in the fundamental stages (the text will be quoted below); how could they be associated with equanimity? The explanation says: The two supernormal knowledges are only associated with the faculty of equanimity. Question: The earlier objection is well resolved, but what about the latter objection? The explanation says: When the treatise says that the two supernormal knowledges rely on the fundamental dhyānas, the intention is to say that the two supernormal knowledges are attained in reliance on the fundamental dhyāna, not that they are subsumed under that fundamental stage itself. Just as the mind of transformation of the kāmadhātu is attained in reliance on the fundamental dhyāna but is not included in the fundamental dhyāna, so it is with the two supernormal knowledges. Or it is spoken based on the uninterrupted path of the two supernormal knowledges, or based on the faculties relied upon by the two supernormal knowledges; thus there is no error in saying they rely on the fundamental dhyāna. If one insists on clinging strictly to the text as definitive, the treatise says that the five supernormal knowledges rely on the four dhyānas, so the two supernormal knowledges should also be subsumed under the higher three dhyānas. Another explanation: The two supernormal knowledges are associated with pleasure and equanimity. Question: How are the preceding two objections resolved? The explanation says: Although the faculty of equanimity is not subsumed under the fundamental stage, it is attained in reliance on the fundamental, as resolved before. When born in the higher stage and arousing the lower two supernormal knowledges, it is only equanimity and not pleasure; equanimity is neutral and arises somewhat more easily, so when born in the higher one arouses the lower. Pleasure is not neutral and arises with somewhat more difficulty, so when born in the higher one does not arouse the lower. Furthermore, just as when an ordinary worldling born in the fourth dhyāna casually arouses the lower three consciousnesses, he only arouses the faculty of equanimity and not the faculty of pleasure; so it is with the two supernormal knowledges; therefore it does not conflict with that text. Furthermore, Dharma Master Kong also said that the two supernormal knowledges are associated with pleasure and equanimity. As for "as appropriate": because the sensations associated with the three indeterminate minds differ, it says "as appropriate," not being karmic maturation. The rest are all karmic maturation.