俱舍論記 4.92

4.92

「謂失念至謂除前相」者，釋。此顯不減過。無癡慧性善中不說，失念等五念等為體，大惑地中亦不說也，故本論說相對四句。如文可知。故念等五，大地法攝。問：大地法十皆通於染，何故本論於大煩惱地法中說念等五非受等五？解云：受、想、思、觸、欲，順染偏強。念、定、慧、作意、勝解，順淨偏勝。恐疑念等五法，唯淨中有，不通染中，為釋此疑，是故別翻。若爾，亦應恐疑受等五法唯染中有，於淨品中何故不說？解云：據此義邊，於善法中亦應別說，而不說者略而不論，或可影顯。又解念等五法雖順淨品，於染品中不起即已，起必猛利勝受等五，故偏說之。受等順染據長時說，今據猛利，是故別翻。若爾，受等於淨品中不起即已，起必猛利勝念等五，於善法中何不別說？解云：據此義邊，於善法中亦應別說，而不說者略而不論，或可影顯。又解：念等五法偏順淨品，不應起染障善法生。而今障善，顯法希寄，如自眷屬忽相違背。若爾，受等偏順染品，不應起淨障染法生。起善心時障染不生，亦顯法希奇，何故不於善法中說？解云：據此義邊，於善法中亦應別說，而不說者略而不論，或可影顯。

On "Namely, loss of mindfulness ... refers to excluding the preceding characteristics": This is the explanation. This demonstrates the absence of the fault of undercounting. Non-delusion (amoha), having the intrinsic nature of wisdom (prajñā), is not stated among the wholesome [ground-factors], and the five beginning with loss of mindfulness (muṣitasmṛtitā) have mindfulness and the others as their substance, so they are likewise not stated among the ground of great defilement; therefore, the fundamental treatise states four mutually correlative alternatives, which can be known from the text. Thus, the five beginning with mindfulness are subsumed under the factors of the universal ground (mahābhūmika). Question: The ten factors of the universal ground all apply to defilement; why did the fundamental treatise speak of the five beginning with mindfulness rather than the five beginning with feeling among the factors of the ground of great defilement? The explanation states: Feeling, conception, volition, contact, and desire tend more strongly toward defilement. Mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, attention, and resolve tend more predominantly toward purity. Fearing that someone might suspect that the five factors beginning with mindfulness exist only in purity and do not extend to defilement, the separate inversions were made to dispel this doubt. If so, one might also fear that someone would suspect that the five factors beginning with feeling exist only in defilement; why were they not spoken of in the wholesome category? The explanation states: According to this line of meaning, they should indeed have been separately stated among the wholesome factors, but the fact that they were not stated was an abbreviation without discussion, or it may be that they are implicitly indicated. Another explanation is that although the five factors beginning with mindfulness tend toward the wholesome category, if they do not arise in the defiled category, that is one thing, but when they do arise they must be fierce and superior to the five beginning with feeling; therefore, they are spoken of exclusively. The tendency of feeling and the others toward defilement is spoken of in terms of extended duration, while here it is spoken of in terms of fierceness; therefore, they are separately inverted. If so, when feeling and the others do not arise in the wholesome category, that is one thing, but when they do arise they must be fierce and superior to the five beginning with mindfulness; why were they not separately stated among the wholesome factors? The explanation states: According to this line of meaning, they should indeed have been separately stated among the wholesome factors, but the fact that they were not stated was an abbreviation without discussion, or it may be that they are implicitly indicated. Another explanation is: The five factors beginning with mindfulness tend especially toward the wholesome category and should not arise as defiled to obstruct the arising of wholesome factors; yet now they obstruct the wholesome, revealing an extraordinary phenomenon—just as one's own retainers suddenly turn against one. If so, feeling and the others tend especially toward the defiled category and should not arise as pure to obstruct the arising of defiled factors; when a wholesome mind arises, they obstruct defilement from arising, which likewise reveals an extraordinary phenomenon; why were they not spoken of among the wholesome factors? The explanation states: According to this line of meaning, they should indeed have been separately stated among the wholesome factors, but the fact that they were not stated was an abbreviation without discussion, or it may be that they are implicitly indicated.