俱舍論記 4.227

4.227

「若工巧處至得亦許爾」者，工巧處以色、聲、香、味、觸為體。威儀路以色、香、味、觸為體。此舉所依，顯能依四蘊。故《婆沙》一百二十六云「工巧處者，謂色、聲、香、味、觸五處為體。起工巧處者，謂能起彼意、法二處為體。」又云「威儀路者，謂色、香、味、觸四處為體。起威儀路者，謂能起彼意、法二處為體。」又解：應言工巧處心、威儀路心，不言心者略而不論。又一解云：心是威儀、工巧所依，名處、名路。若作此解，即與《婆沙》相違。若工巧處及威儀路四蘊極數習者，亦有前、後、俱得。除上別簡有三世得。自餘一切異熟五蘊，及威儀路、工巧處、通果色蘊，及威儀路、工巧處四蘊一分，並自性無記色、行一分，唯有法俱得。故《正理》十二云「又威儀路四蘊之得，多分世斷及剎那斷，唯除諸佛、馬勝苾芻，及餘善習威儀路者。若工巧處四蘊之得，亦多分世斷及剎那斷，除毘濕縛羯摩天神，及餘善習工巧處者。」問：色界威儀路四蘊，有三世得不？解云：彼界非極串習，無三世得。又《婆沙》一百五十七解欲界中云「威儀路四蘊中善串習者，如佛、馬勝，及餘有情所善串習。并工巧處四蘊中善串習者，如佛、妙業天子，及餘有情所善串習。彼得亦皆世雜、剎那雜，謂在三世各有三世得故。」又《婆沙》解色界中云「一切有覆無記、無覆無記色蘊，及威儀路異熟四蘊，彼得世不雜、剎那不雜，隨在彼世即唯有彼世得故。」准《婆沙》文，於欲界中即別簡威儀、工巧極串習者有三世得，於色界中即不別簡威儀有三世得，明知色界威儀四蘊無三世得。問：若威儀路、工巧處不串習者無前後得，何故《識身足論》云「成就欲界善心、不善心，皆云定成就欲界無覆無記心。」彼論既言定成，是即初生欲界必定成就二無記心。云何乃言不串習者無三世得？解云：論意各別，難為會釋。又解：此論、《正理》、《婆沙》、《雜心》亦據不串習者，所以有不成就。《識身》唯據串習者，故言成就。各據一義竝不相違，至後得心當更分別。問：威儀路、工巧處四蘊，若極串習者有三世得，何故頌文不簡，但簡二通變化？解云：二通變化，以定成故，所以別簡。威儀、工巧以不定故，故不別標。

"If based on an area of craftsmanship [up to] its acquisition is also accepted to be thus": An area of craftsmanship takes visible form, sound, smell, taste, and tangible as its nature. The path of deportment takes visible form, smell, taste, and tangible as its nature. This adduces the basis to show the four dependent aggregates. Therefore, *Mahāvibhāṣā* 126 says: "An 'area of craftsmanship' takes the five bases of visible form, sound, smell, taste, and tangible as its nature. That which gives rise to an area of craftsmanship takes the two bases of mind and mental phenomena that can give rise to it as its nature." It also says: "A 'path of deportment' takes the four bases of visible form, smell, taste, and tangible as its nature. That which gives rise to a path of deportment takes the two bases of mind and mental phenomena that can give rise to it as its nature." Another explanation says: One ought to say "the mind of an area of craftsmanship" and "the mind of a path of deportment"; that it does not say "mind" is because it is omitted for brevity. Yet another explanation says: Mind is the basis of deportment and craftsmanship, and hence is called a "base" or a "path." If one adopts this explanation, it contradicts the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. If the four aggregates of an area of craftsmanship and a path of deportment are extremely practiced, they also have prior, posterior, and simultaneous acquisition. Apart from what has been specifically distinguished above as having acquisition in the three periods of time, all other five aggregates of fruition, as well as the matter aggregate of the path of deportment, area of craftsmanship, and fruit of superknowledge, and one portion of the four aggregates of the path of deportment and area of craftsmanship, together with one portion of matter and conditioning forces that are indeterminate by nature, have only simultaneous acquisition with the phenomenon. Therefore, *Nyāyānusāra* 12 says: "Furthermore, the acquisition of the four aggregates of the path of deportment is mostly severed by time and severed by moment, with the sole exception of the Buddhas, the bhikṣu Aśvajit, and others who are well-practiced in the path of deportment. The acquisition of the four aggregates of an area of craftsmanship is also mostly severed by time and severed by moment, excepting the god Viśvakarman and others who are well-practiced in areas of craftsmanship." Question: Do the four aggregates of the path of deportment in the form realm have acquisition in the three periods of time or not? The explanation says: In that realm, they are not extremely practiced, so they do not have acquisition in the three periods of time. Furthermore, *Mahāvibhāṣā* 157, explaining the desire realm, says: "Those well-practiced among the four aggregates of the path of deportment—such as those well-practiced by the Buddha, Aśvajit, and other sentient beings; and those well-practiced among the four aggregates of an area of craftsmanship—such as those well-practiced by the Buddha, the devaputra Suparman (Viśvakarman), and other sentient beings: their acquisitions are also all mixed with respect to time and mixed with respect to moment, meaning that in the three periods of time, each has acquisitions of the three periods of time." Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, explaining the form realm, says: "For all matter aggregates that are veiled-indeterminate and unveiled-indeterminate, and the four aggregates of deportment and fruition, their acquisitions are not mixed with respect to time and not mixed with respect to moment, because in whatever time they exist, they have only the acquisition of that time." According to the text of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, in the desire realm it specifically distinguishes that those who are extremely practiced in deportment and craftsmanship have acquisitions of the three periods of time, whereas in the form realm it does not specifically distinguish deportment as having acquisitions of the three periods of time; thus we know clearly that the four aggregates of deportment in the form realm do not have acquisitions of the three periods of time. Question: If unpracticed paths of deportment and areas of craftsmanship do not have prior and posterior acquisition, why does the *Vijñānakāya* say: "One who possesses a wholesome or unwholesome mind of the desire realm is in all cases said to definitely possess an unveiled-indeterminate mind of the desire realm"? Since that treatise says "definitely possesses," this means that upon being newly born into the desire realm, one definitely possesses the two indeterminate minds. How can one then say that unpracticed ones do not have acquisitions of the three periods of time? The explanation says: The treatises have different intentions, which are difficult to reconcile. Another explanation says: This treatise, the *Nyāyānusāra*, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, and the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* also proceed from the perspective of the unpracticed, and therefore there is non-possession. The *Vijñānakāya* proceeds solely from the perspective of the practiced, and therefore speaks of possession. Each is based on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other; this will be further distinguished later under the mind that acquires [them]. Question: If the four aggregates of the path of deportment and area of craftsmanship, when extremely practiced, have acquisitions of the three periods of time, why does the verse not distinguish them, but distinguishes only the two superknowledges and magical creation? The explanation says: Because the two superknowledges and magical creation are definitely accomplished, they are specifically distinguished. Because deportment and craftsmanship are not definite, they are not specifically indicated.