俱舍論記 4.110

4.110

「然欲界心至至二十三」者，此釋初頌。善心俱生，其數可知。於心所中，隨從、自力相對差別成四句者，隨從謂隨他起，自力謂別作頭生。第一句，隨從非自力，有二十九法，謂大地法十中除慧餘九法，大善地法十，大煩惱法六中除無明餘五法，大不善地二，及尋、伺、睡眠。問：若睡眠是隨從非自力者，何故《婆沙》五十簡纏非結中有復次云「睡眠、惡作雖亦獨立，而不離二。」准彼論文，睡眠是獨立，如何乃言非自力耶？解云：《婆沙》據睡眠，不與貪等、忿等相應，與善、無覆無記心相應，名獨立。如無明，不與貪等、忿等相應，名不共無明。今立四句中，睡眠非自力起者，據無別自力起相，如尋、伺等，故初句攝。又解：《婆沙》此師意說：一切睡眠皆名獨立，此貪等皆名隨從，以於睡位起故。若作斯解，第二句攝。又解：睡通二種，若與貪等相應名隨從，若與善、無覆無記心相應名自力。《婆沙》但言雖亦獨立，不言不通隨從。若作斯解，即第三句攝。又解：是餘師義，不必須通。第二句，自力非隨從，有十五法，謂小煩惱地十，及惡作、貪、瞋、慢、疑。第三句，隨從亦自力，有二法，謂慧、無明。慧若是五見，名自力；餘三性相應，名隨從。無明若不與貪等、忿等、惡作相應，名自力；若與貪等九惑及忿等十惑并惡作相應，名隨從。第四句，謂除前說。

Regarding "However, a desire-realm mind [...] up to twenty-three,": this explains the first verse. The co-arising of wholesome minds can be known by its number. Among the mental factors, relative distinctions between dependent [arising] and autonomous [arising] form four alternatives. "Dependent" means arising in dependence on another; "autonomous" means arising separately on its own initiative. In the first alternative, dependent and not autonomous, there are twenty-nine dharmas, namely, the other nine dharmas excluding wisdom among the ten mahābhūmika-dharmas, the ten kuśalamahābhūmika-dharmas, the other five dharmas excluding ignorance among the six kleśamahābhūmika-dharmas, the two akuśalamahābhūmika-dharmas, and investigation, inquiry, and torpor. Question: If torpor is dependent and not autonomous, why does fascicle 50 of the Mahāvibhāṣā, when distinguishing entanglements (paryavasthāna) from fetters (saṃyojana), state in an alternative explanation: "Although torpor and regret also arise independently, they are not apart from the two"? According to that treatise text, torpor arises independently; how then can it be said to be not autonomous? Explanation: The Mahāvibhāṣā refers to torpor when it is not associated with attachment and the like, or wrath and the like, but is associated with wholesome or unafflicted indeterminate minds, calling this independent. Just as ignorance, when not associated with attachment and the like, or wrath and the like, is called unshared ignorance. Now, in establishing the four alternatives, that torpor does not arise autonomously refers to its lacking a distinct autonomous mark of arising, like investigation and inquiry; hence it is subsumed under the first alternative. Another explanation: The master of the Mahāvibhāṣā intends that all torpor is called independent, while attachment and the like are all called dependent because they arise during sleep. If interpreted this way, it is subsumed under the second alternative. Another explanation: Torpor encompasses two kinds: if associated with attachment and the like, it is called dependent; if associated with wholesome or unafflicted indeterminate minds, it is called autonomous. The Mahāvibhāṣā only says "although it also arises independently," but does not say it cannot be dependent. If interpreted this way, it is subsumed under the third alternative. Another explanation: This is the view of another master and does not necessarily need to be harmonized. In the second alternative, autonomous and not dependent, there are fifteen dharmas, namely the ten parittakleśabhūmika-dharmas, and regret, attachment, anger, pride, and doubt. In the third alternative, both dependent and autonomous, there are two dharmas, namely wisdom and ignorance. If wisdom is the five views, it is called autonomous; when associated with the remaining three moral natures, it is called dependent. If ignorance is not associated with attachment and the like, wrath and the like, or regret, it is called autonomous; if associated with the nine defilements of attachment and the like, the ten defilements of wrath and the like, and regret, it is called dependent. The fourth alternative refers to those excluding what was previously stated.