俱舍論記 3.97

3.97

「如是已說至唯無記性」者，此即第四三性門。二十二根先後次第，信等八根數雖居後，乘次前文明信等五文勢便故，故今先說信等八根是善。三無漏根前雖非後，從多分說義便竝乘。又解：乘前先問善，是故先說所以憂根不通無記者，強思起故。又《婆沙》一百四十四，解憂非無記云「憂根且非有覆無記，由與欲界有身見、邊執見不相應故。所以者何？行相異故。彼二見歡行相轉，憂根慼行相轉，互相違法不相應故。憂根亦非無覆無記，非威儀路、工巧處、異熟生所攝故。問：何故憂根非威儀路所攝？答：憂根分別轉，威儀路無分別轉。若威儀路有憂根者，設有分別：我今應作如是威儀，如佛世尊或如馬勝。即分別時便應已住如是威儀。然威儀路無此分別，故威儀路無有憂根。問：何故憂根非工巧處？答：憂根分別轉，工巧處無分別轉。若工巧處有憂根者，設有分別：我今應作如是工巧，如佛世尊或如妙業天子。即分別時已應成辨如是工巧。然工巧處無此分別，故工巧處無有憂根。問：何故憂根非異熟生？答：憂根分別轉，異熟生無分別轉。若異熟生有憂根者，設有分別：我今應受如是異熟，如佛世尊或轉輪聖王。即分別時便應現受如是異熟。然異熟生無此分別，故異熟生無有憂根（廣如彼釋）。」意及餘四受，一一通三性；七色、命八唯無記性。問：受、念、定、慧俱大地法，皆通三性，何故分別二十二根中受通三性，非念、定、慧？解云：三性受皆有勝用，故受通三性。唯善，念、定、慧有別勝用；不善、無記，念、定、慧無別勝用。故三唯善。又解：善受於淨品有勝用，不善受於染品有勝用，無記受通於染淨有勝用，所以受通三性。故前文言「有餘師說：樂等於淨亦為增上，善念、定、慧於淨用勝，不善、無記無別勝用，故三唯善。」又解：通三性受，於染污品皆有勝用故。受通三性，所順雖復唯染，能順之受乃通三性。故前文言「樂等五受於染增上。善念、定、慧唯於淨品有勝作用，故三唯善。不善、無記念、定、慧三，於淨品非勝。故此三種不通不善、無記。染法易起，故三性受皆能順染。淨法難起，故染、無記念、定、慧三不能順淨。」故《婆沙》云「問：何故受善、染、無記皆立為根？念、定、慧三唯善立根，非染、無記？答：受於順染品勢用增上，善、染、無記受皆有勢力，順雜染品，故竝立根。慧、念、定三順清淨品勢用增上，唯善慧、念、定順清淨品，故立為根。染慧、念、定乃相資助斷清淨品，無記慧等亦於淨品不順，是故皆不立根（已上論文）。」

Regarding "It has thus been explained ... are solely of neutral nature": this is the fourth section, on the three moral natures. As for the sequence of the twenty-two faculties, although the eight faculties beginning with faith are later in number, taking advantage of the momentum of the immediately preceding text explaining the five beginning with faith, the text now first states that the eight faculties beginning with faith are wholesome. Although the three uncontaminated faculties precede rather than follow [in other classifications], taking the majority view makes the meaning convenient and they are treated together. Another explanation: taking advantage of the preceding [text] which first asked about the wholesome, it is therefore stated first. The reason why the faculty of grief does not admit of the neutral is that it arises from strong volition. Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 144, explaining that grief is not neutral, says: "First, the faculty of grief is not defiled-neutral, because it is not associated with the view of true individuality or extreme views in the desire realm. Why is this? Because their modes of activity differ. Those two views operate with an expansive mode of activity, while the faculty of grief operates with a distressed mode of activity; mutually contrary phenomena do not associate. The faculty of grief is also not undefiled-neutral, because it is not subsumed under deportment, craftsmanship, or fruition-born [states]. Question: Why is the faculty of grief not subsumed under deportment? Answer: The faculty of grief operates with conceptual discrimination, whereas deportment operates without conceptual discrimination. If deportment possessed the faculty of grief, supposing there were conceptual discrimination: 'I should now assume such deportment, like the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, or like Aśvajit,' then at the very moment of discrimination, one would already abide in such deportment. But deportment lacks this discrimination; hence deportment does not possess the faculty of grief. Question: Why is the faculty of grief not craftsmanship? Answer: The faculty of grief operates with conceptual discrimination, whereas craftsmanship operates without conceptual discrimination. If craftsmanship possessed the faculty of grief, supposing there were conceptual discrimination: 'I should now produce such craftsmanship, like the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, or like the devaputra Viśvakarman,' then at the very moment of discrimination, one would already have accomplished such craftsmanship. But craftsmanship lacks this discrimination; hence craftsmanship does not possess the faculty of grief. Question: Why is the faculty of grief not fruition-born? Answer: The faculty of grief operates with conceptual discrimination, whereas fruition-born [states] operate without conceptual discrimination. If fruition-born [states] possessed the faculty of grief, supposing there were conceptual discrimination: 'I should now experience such fruition, like the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, or a wheel-turning sage king,' then at the very moment of discrimination, one would directly experience such fruition. But fruition-born [states] lack this discrimination; hence fruition-born [states] do not possess the faculty of grief (explained at length as in that text)." The mind and the remaining four feelings each admit of all three natures; the seven material faculties and life, these eight, are solely of neutral nature. Question: Feeling, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are all universally present mental factors and all admit of the three natures; why is it that in the analysis of the twenty-two faculties feeling admits of the three natures, but not mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom? Explanation: Feeling of all three natures has a superior function; hence feeling admits of the three natures. Only wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom have a distinct superior function; unwholesome and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom have no distinct superior function. Hence these three are solely wholesome. Another explanation: Wholesome feeling has a superior function regarding the pure category, unwholesome feeling has a superior function regarding the defiled category, and neutral feeling has a superior function regarding both defiled and pure; this is why feeling admits of the three natures. Therefore, the earlier text stated: "Other masters say: Pleasure and so forth are also predominant with respect to the pure; wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom have superior function with respect to the pure, whereas unwholesome and neutral ones have no distinct superior function; hence these three are solely wholesome." Another explanation: Feeling that admits of the three natures has a superior function with respect to the defiled category in all cases; feeling admits of the three natures, so although what is conformed to is solely defiled, the feeling that conforms to it admits of the three natures. Therefore, the earlier text stated: "The five feelings of pleasure and so forth are predominant with respect to defilement. Wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom have superior function only with respect to the pure category; hence these three are solely wholesome. The three—unwholesome and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom—are not superior with respect to the pure category. Hence these three do not admit of the unwholesome or the neutral. Defiled phenomena arise easily, so feelings of all three natures are all capable of conforming to defilement. Pure phenomena arise with difficulty, so defiled and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are incapable of conforming to the pure." Thus the *Mahāvibhāṣā* says: "Question: Why are feelings—wholesome, defiled, and neutral—all established as faculties, whereas mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are established as faculties solely when wholesome, but not when defiled or neutral? Answer: Feeling has predominant power in conforming to the defiled category; wholesome, defiled, and neutral feelings all have the power to conform to the defiled category, and are therefore all established as faculties. Wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration have predominant power in conforming to the pure category; only wholesome wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration conform to the pure category, and are therefore established as faculties. Defiled wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration mutually assist in cutting off the pure category, and neutral wisdom and so forth also do not conform to the pure category; therefore, none of them are established as faculties (this concludes the treatise text)."