俱舍論記 6.141

6.141

「有業能感至諾瞿陀等」者，感五處乃至十一，隨其所應，任業勢力所感之果多少不定。所以者何？業或少果或多果故，如外種果或少或多。種所生果少者，如穀、麥等，一種一年收，又根、莖等少。又一房唯一子，名種、果少。種所生果多者，如蓮、石榴、諾瞿陀樹等，一種多年收，又根、莖等多。又一房有多子，名種果多。又解：於十一處若展轉相望，親強勝者，隨感此處亦定感餘，故定感一乃至定感四。若展轉相望非親強者，雖有俱時而非定感。問：何故蘊約因明，處約果顯？解云：五蘊皆能為因，故約因辨。十二處多分不能為因，故約果明，以十一處皆容為果故。問：如《婆沙》十九云「復次有業唯受一處異熟，謂得命根、眾同分業，彼業唯受法處異熟。有業唯受二處異熟，謂得意處業，彼業唯受意處、法處異熟。得觸處業亦受二處異熟，謂觸處、法處。得身處業受三處異熟，謂身處、觸處、法處。得色、香、味處業亦爾，各受自處、觸處、法處異熟。得眼處業受四處異熟，謂眼處、身處、觸處、法處。得耳、鼻、舌處業亦爾，謂各受自處、身處、觸處、法處異熟。有餘師說：一切大種皆生色、聲，欲界諸色不離香、味。彼作是說：得眼處業受七處異熟，眼處、身處及色、香、味、觸、法處異熟。得耳、鼻、舌處業亦爾，謂各受自處、身處及色、香、味、觸、法處異熟。得身處業受六處異熟，謂身處及色、香、味、觸、法處異熟。得色處業受五處異熟，謂色、香、味、觸、法處異熟。得香、味、觸處業亦爾，謂各受色、香、味、觸、法處異熟。如是所說是定得者；不定得者，其數不定。然有業能受八處異熟，有業能受九處異熟，有業能受十處異熟，有業能受十一處異熟，皆除聲處。」准《婆沙》文，更有餘師說定感五、六、七不同，如何會釋？何者為正？解云：此論及《婆沙》前師意，定感一、二、三、四。感不定中，言感五、六、七、八、九、十、十一。《婆沙》餘師說感五、六、七，亦是定感為異。彼師意說以色、香、味、觸、法定不相離故，感眼等四各定感七，感身定感六，感色、香、味、觸各定感五。於二說中，此論及《婆沙》初說為正，餘師非正。其義云何？一即定感一、二、三、四處。《婆沙》與《俱舍》同，又《雜心．行品》亦同此論，竝無異說。二即《婆沙》言感五，六，七者，是餘師不正義。既言一切大種皆生色、聲，明知非是正義。三即理破。若言定不相離即感，彼者應無感五，以感色、香、味、觸時身必俱故。定不相離，應亦感身。若言身望色等不同業感者，感彼身時寧感色等？以此故知，此論及《婆沙》初師為正。問：若五、六、七是不定，何故《婆沙》前師不別說耶？解云：理應說在不定，而不別標者，以餘師說在定中，異說不同略不別顯。准《俱舍》文，不定攝故。泰法師解《俱舍》云：「感觸處、感二處及感三處、四處，竝是不正義。餘感一處、感二處及感五處已去，此是正義。」法師大意同《婆沙》餘師義，約不相離以解，如前徵破。又解：《婆沙》前後兩師各據一義。前家據定同性業感體必俱有者說，後師據不相離者說。而言感色等不說感身等者，以五色根是生處本故，感彼兼感色等；以色等非是生處本故，感彼色等不必感身等。若作此解，《俱舍》意或感五、六、七，亦分同《婆沙》餘師。以五、六、七異說不同，故此論文不別顯說。

Regarding 'Some karma can experience ... nyagrodha, and so on': Experiencing five up to eleven āyatanas is indeterminate in the number of results experienced according to the potency of the karma, as appropriate. Why is this? Because karma may have few results or many results, just as external seeds produce few or many fruits. Seeds producing few fruits are like grain, wheat, and so on: one seed yields a harvest for one year, and roots, stems, and so forth are few; moreover, one pod has only one seed—this is called seeds and fruits being few. Seeds producing many fruits are like the lotus, pomegranate, nyagrodha tree, and so on: one seed yields harvests for many years, and roots, stems, and so forth are many; moreover, one pod has many seeds—this is called seeds and fruits being many. Another explanation: among the eleven āyatanas, if upon mutual comparison they are intimate and dominant, whenever one experiences this āyatana one definitely also experiences the other; therefore one definitely experiences one up to definitely experiencing four. If upon mutual comparison they are not intimate and dominant, even though they are simultaneous, they are not definitely experienced. Question: Why are the skandhas explained in terms of cause, while the āyatanas are elucidated in terms of result? Explanation: All five skandhas can function as causes, and are thus analyzed in terms of cause. Most of the twelve āyatanas cannot function as [karmic] causes, and are thus explained in terms of result, because eleven āyatanas can all serve as results. Question: Fascicle 19 of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* says: 'Furthermore, some karma receives the retribution of only one āyatana, namely the karma that acquires the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga; that karma receives the retribution of only the mental-object āyatana. Some karma receives the retribution of two āyatanas, namely karma that acquires the mind āyatana; that karma receives the retribution of only the mind and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the tactile āyatana also receives the retribution of two āyatanas, namely the tactile and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the body āyatana receives the retribution of three āyatanas, namely the body, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the visible-form, fragrance, or taste āyatana is also like this, each receiving the retribution of its own āyatana, the tactile, and the mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the eye āyatana receives the retribution of four āyatanas, namely the eye, body, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the ear, nose, or tongue āyatana is also like this, namely each receiving the retribution of its own āyatana, the body, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Other masters say: All primary elements produce visible form and sound; all matter in the desire realm is not separated from fragrance and taste. They say: Karma that acquires the eye āyatana receives the retribution of seven āyatanas, namely the retribution of the eye, body, visible-form, fragrance, taste, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the ear, nose, or tongue āyatana is also like this, namely each receiving the retribution of its own āyatana, the body, visible-form, fragrance, taste, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the body āyatana receives the retribution of six āyatanas, namely the retribution of the body, visible-form, fragrance, taste, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the visible-form āyatana receives the retribution of five āyatanas, namely the retribution of the visible-form, fragrance, taste, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. Karma that acquires the fragrance, taste, or tactile āyatana is also like this, namely each receiving the retribution of the visible-form, fragrance, taste, tactile, and mental-object āyatanas. What is stated like this is what is definitely acquired; as for what is indeterminately acquired, the number is indeterminate. However, some karma can receive the retribution of eight āyatanas, some karma can receive the retribution of nine āyatanas, some karma can receive the retribution of ten āyatanas, and some karma can receive the retribution of eleven āyatanas—all excluding the sound āyatana.' In light of this passage from the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, where yet other masters speak differently of definitely experiencing five, six, or seven, how should this be reconciled? Which one is correct? Explanation: In the intent of this treatise and the former master of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, one definitely experiences one, two, three, or four; among the indeterminately experienced, it mentions experiencing five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven. The difference is that the other masters in the *Mahāvibhāṣā* say experiencing five, six, or seven is also definitely experienced. Those masters mean that because visible form, fragrance, taste, touch, and mental objects are definitely inseparable, experiencing the four of the eye and so on each definitely experiences seven; experiencing the body definitely experiences six; experiencing visible form, fragrance, taste, or touch each definitely experiences five. Between the two explanations, this treatise and the first master of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* are correct; the other masters are not correct. Why is this? First, definitely experiencing one, two, three, or four āyatanas is identical between the *Mahāvibhāṣā* and the *Kośa*; moreover, the 'Saṃskāra Chapter' of the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* is also identical with this treatise, with no divergent explanation. Second, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*'s statement about experiencing five, six, or seven is the incorrect doctrine of other masters. Since they say that all primary elements produce visible form and sound, we clearly know it is not the correct doctrine. Third, it is refuted by reason: if one says that what is definitely inseparable must be experienced along with it, there should be no experiencing of five, because when experiencing visible form, fragrance, taste, or touch, the body must co-occur; being definitely inseparable, it should also experience the body. If one says that the body, in relation to visible form and so on, is not experienced by the same karma, how could experiencing that body experience visible form and so on? From this we know that this treatise and the first master of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* are correct. Question: If five, six, and seven are indeterminate, why does the former master of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* not mention them separately? Explanation: In principle they should be stated among the indeterminate; that they are not separately designated is because the other masters stated them among the definite, and on account of the discrepancy among divergent doctrines they are omitted and not separately elucidated. In light of the text of the *Kośa*, they are subsumed under the indeterminate. Dharma Master Tai, explaining the *Kośa*, says: 'Experiencing the tactile āyatana, experiencing two āyatanas, and experiencing three or four āyatanas are all incorrect doctrines. The other [cases of] experiencing one āyatana, experiencing two āyatanas, and experiencing five āyatanas onward are the correct doctrine.' The Master's general idea agrees with the doctrine of the other masters of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, explaining it in terms of inseparability, which has been refuted above. Another explanation: the former and later masters of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* each rely on one perspective. The former school speaks on the basis of what must be experienced by karma of definitely the same nature and whose substances must co-occur; the later masters speak on the basis of what is inseparable. And their speaking of experiencing visible form and so on without speaking of experiencing the body and so on is because the five material faculties are the basis of birth; therefore experiencing them concurrently experiences visible form and so on. Because visible form and so on are not the basis of birth, experiencing those visible forms and so on does not necessarily experience the body and so on. If one adopts this explanation, the intention of the *Kośa* regarding experiencing five, six, or seven also partly agrees with the other masters of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. Because of the discrepancies among divergent doctrines regarding five, six, and seven, the text of this treatise does not elucidate them separately.