[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 5.25 # 俱舍論記 5.25 俱舍論記 5.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.5.25) 「謂無想定」者，答。故《婆沙》一百一十八云「或有說者，無想定感無想及色異熟。命根、眾同分是彼有心靜慮異熟，所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者，無想定感無想及色異熟，命根是彼有心靜慮異熟，所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者，無想定感無想異熟，所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者，若有心時亦感無心諸蘊異熟，若無心時亦感有心諸蘊異熟。評曰：應作是說。無想異熟唯無想定感。一切命根及眾同分、眼等色根皆業所感。餘蘊俱感。」《正理》十二同彼《婆沙》初師不正義，此論同《婆沙》評家。問：此論若同婆沙評家，命及色根非無想定感。何故下文感引、滿中，但言二定及得不能感眾同分，不言不感命及色根？解云：下文明感引、滿二種，但言二定及得不能感引、能感滿，非於滿中能感一切。 > "It refers to the non-conceptual concentration (asaṃjñi-samāpatti)," answers the text. Thus, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 118, states: "Some say that the non-conceptual concentration produces the non-conceptual \[state\] and material vipāka. The life-faculty and the generic similarity (nikāya-sabhāga) are the vipāka of that dhyāna endowed with mind, while the remaining skandhas are the vipāka of both together. Others say that the non-conceptual concentration produces the non-conceptual \[state\] and material vipāka, the life-faculty is the vipāka of that dhyāna endowed with mind, and the remaining skandhas are the vipāka of both together. Others say that the non-conceptual concentration produces the non-conceptual vipāka, while the remaining skandhas are the vipāka of both together. Others say that when there is mind, it also produces the vipāka of the mindless skandhas, and when there is no mind, it also produces the vipāka of the minded skandhas. Evaluation: It should be stated as follows: The non-conceptual vipāka is produced solely by the non-conceptual concentration. All life-faculties, generic similarities, and physical faculties such as the eye are produced by karma. The remaining skandhas are produced by both." The Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 12, agrees with the incorrect view of the first master of the Mahāvibhāṣā; this treatise agrees with the evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Question: If this treatise agrees with the evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā that the life-faculty and physical faculties are not produced by the non-conceptual concentration, why does it state below, regarding projectful and fulfilling \[karma\], only that the two concentrations and attainment cannot produce the generic similarity, without mentioning that they do not produce the life-faculty and physical faculties? Explanation: The text below clarifies the two kinds of \[karma\], projectful and fulfilling, merely stating that the two concentrations and attainment cannot project, but can fulfill; it does not mean that within fulfillment, they can produce everything. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.5.24) - [Next: 5.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.5.26) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.5.25) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.5.23) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.5.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.5.25) · Pramāṇa