俱舍論記 5.239

5.239

「論曰至然不可說」者，此論二說，後說非正。故《婆沙》破云「評曰：彼不應作是說。寧說無，不應說有而不可說，以無用故。」就前說中復有二說：一說名隨語，二地繫；一說名隨身，五地繫。《婆沙》、《正理》俱有二說，並無評文。故《正理》云「此名等三，唯是欲、色二界所繫。就色界中，有說唯在初靜慮地，有說亦通上三靜慮，隨語、隨身所繫別故。若說此三隨語繫者，設生欲界作欲界語時，語、名等身皆是欲界繫。彼所說義，或三界繫、或通不繫。即彼復作初定語時，語及名等初定地繫，身欲界繫，義如前說。如是若生初靜慮地作二地語，如理應思。若生二、三、四靜慮地作二地語，亦如理思。若說此三隨身繫者，設生欲界或四靜慮，名等及身各自地繫，語或自地或他地繫，義如前說。」問：二說之中何者為正？解云：隨語應正，以語親能發名等義故。又經部師說名身等即是語故。問：何故此論下文言「法無礙解通五地」耶？解云：據能緣心通於五地，理實名等隨語二地。難：若爾，詞無礙解約能緣心，何不亦通五地，唯說二地？解云：以緣言詞難故，要自地心緣。又解：下文言「法無礙解通五地」者，此是隨身繫家，無勞會釋。又解：即准彼下文，隨身繫者應可為正。問：化心緣名等不？解云：化心不緣，是通果心緣。應知通果心有二：一化心通果心、二發業通果心。但是第二通果心，能緣化人發語名等，法分別行亦容此故。問：若爾：何故不緣心等？解云：既得緣名，亦緣心等。然諸論說緣四境者，據化心說也。又解：不緣名等，若化心但緣四境，若發業通果心但緣身、語二業。而言通法分別行者，據總緣說，故名緣法。非緣七種法，故名緣法。問：發語通果心不緣三界，如何名等能詮三界？解云：雖發語通果心不緣三界，然通果加行遠能發心能緣三界，故所發名能詮三界。

Regarding the passage 'The commentary states: ... but it cannot be stated': this treatise has two explanations, and the latter explanation is not the correct one. Therefore the Vibhāṣā refutes it, saying: 'Evaluation: They should not state this. It is better to say that they do not exist; one should not say that they exist yet cannot be stated, because that is useless.' Within the former explanation there are again two views: one view says that names follow speech and are bound to two stages; one view says that names follow the body and are bound to five stages. Both the Vibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra contain the two views and have no evaluative text. Thus the Nyāyānusāra says: 'These three—name and so forth—are bound only to the Desire and Form realms. Within the Form Realm, some say they are only in the stage of the First Dhyāna; some say they also extend to the upper three dhyānas, because of the distinction in whether they are bound according to speech or according to the body. If one says that these three are bound according to speech: assuming one is born in the Desire Realm, when producing speech of the Desire Realm, the speech, the collections of names, and so forth are all bound to the Desire Realm. The meanings they express are either bound to the three realms or unattached. When that same person again produces speech of the First Dhyāna, speech, names, and so forth are bound to the stage of the First Dhyāna, while the body is bound to the Desire Realm; the meaning is as explained above. In this way, if one is born in the stage of the First Dhyāna and produces speech of the two stages, one should reflect according to the principle. If one is born in the stages of the Second, Third, or Fourth Dhyāna and produces speech of the two stages, one should also reflect according to the principle. If one says that these three are bound according to the body: assuming one is born in the Desire Realm or the four dhyānas, names, etc., and the body are each bound to their own stage, while speech is bound either to its own stage or another stage, with the meaning as explained above.' Question: Between the two views, which is correct? The explanation is: Following speech should be correct, because speech can directly give rise to the meanings of names and so forth. Moreover, the Sautrāntika masters say that the collections of names, etc., are simply speech. Question: Why does this treatise state below that 'the unhindered comprehension of dharma (dharma-pratisaṃvid) extends to five stages'? The explanation is: In terms of the cognizing mind, it extends to five stages; in reality, names and so forth follow speech and are in two stages. Objection: If so, why does the unhindered comprehension of language (nirukti-pratisaṃvid), with respect to the cognizing mind, not also extend to five stages, but is said to be only in two stages? The explanation is: Because cognizing words and expressions is difficult, it must be cognized by a mind of its own stage. Another explanation: the statement below that 'the unhindered comprehension of dharma extends to five stages' is from the proponent of being bound according to the body, and there is no need to reconcile it. Another explanation: precisely in accordance with that text below, the one who holds that it is bound according to the body should be correct. Question: Does the mind of magical transformation (nirmāṇa-citta) cognize names and so forth? The explanation is: The mind of magical transformation does not cognize them; it is the fruition-of-mastery mind (vaiśāradya/māhātmya-phala-citta) that cognizes them. One should know that there are two fruition-of-mastery minds: first, the fruition-of-mastery mind of magical transformation; second, the fruition-of-mastery mind that initiates action. It is only the second fruition-of-mastery mind that can cognize the speech, names, etc., produced by a transformed person, because the mental engagement of discerning dharmas also admits of this. Question: If so, why does it not cognize mind and so forth? The explanation is: Since it is able to cognize names, it also cognizes mind and so forth. However, the treatises saying that it cognizes four sense-objects refers to the mind of magical transformation. Another explanation: it does not cognize names and so forth; the mind of magical transformation cognizes only the four sense-objects, and the fruition-of-mastery mind that initiates action cognizes only bodily and vocal actions. As for saying that it extends to the mental engagement of discerning dharmas, this is spoken in terms of a general cognizing, hence called cognizing dharmas; it is not cognizing the seven kinds of dharmas, which is why it is called cognizing dharmas. Question: The fruition-of-mastery mind that produces speech does not cognize the three realms; how can names, etc., express the three realms? The explanation is: Although the fruition-of-mastery mind that produces speech does not cognize the three realms, the preparatory effort of mastery (prayogika) can distantly produce a mind that cognizes the three realms; therefore, the names produced can express the three realms.