[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) › 6.31 # 俱舍論記 6.31 俱舍論記 6.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.31) 「由果等者至及一等流」者，果中有三：一果、一異熟、一等流。此顯與心同一果等方名隨轉。《正理論》云「豈不等流、異熟亦是一果攝，如何一果外說等流、異熟耶（解云：果言是通，應攝餘二。果外說二，有何意耶）？」《正理》「解云：實爾，此中言一果者，但攝士用及離繫果（解云：若據通說，果名實爾，亦攝餘二。此十隨轉中言一果者，據別而論，唯攝士用及離繫果）。」又《正理》「難云：豈不此言通故，亦攝等流、異熟（解云：豈不此一果言通，亦攝餘二）。」《正理》「解云：雖言亦攝，非此所明。然士用果總有四種，俱生、無間、隔越、不生。此顯與因，非俱有果。為遮唯執與因俱生和合聚中有士用果。此和合聚互為果故，自非自體士用果故，即顯非彼俱起和合士用果中有一果義，是故別舉等流、異熟。」解云：雖一果名通，亦攝等流、異熟，然非此隨轉中所明。此中一果，唯攝士用及離繫果。外伏難云「此中解隨轉義，但言一果足明隨轉，何須別說異熟、等流？」故今釋言：為遣疑妨須說彼二。所以者何？夫士用果總有四種：一俱生士用果，謂俱有相應因同時展轉果，及餘同時造作得者。二無間士用果，謂等無間緣，及餘隣次造作得者。三隔越士用果，謂如異熟果，及如田夫春種秋收等。四不生士用果，謂是擇滅，體不生也。此即汎明諸士用果總有四種。今此十隨轉中言一果者，不說俱生展轉士用果，以自非自體士用果，故非一果義。取餘同時造作得者，於無間中除同性無間，取餘異性無間，於隔越中除異熟果，取餘隔越遠士用果，及取不生擇滅果。恐諸未解者聞一果言，謂攝俱生展轉士用果，及執唯有俱生士用果。故於今時，更別顯示等流、異熟決定，與因不俱時果，為欲遮遣唯執與因俱生和合聚中有士用果。此俱生言遮無間等，和合聚等遮餘俱生造作得者。和合聚言，顯彼更互為因義故。所以須遮此士用者非一果故，謂互為果，即顯己亦是他果，自非自體果。支顯非己果，由不與他同己果故，無一果義也。何但為遮唯執俱生展轉士用果。亦乃兼顯無一果義。由遣斯妨故，一果外別說等流、異熟。問：若依《婆沙》十六及一百五十五，竝云「一果者謂離繫果。」《正理》復云「一果謂士用、離繫，豈不相違？」解云：《婆沙》唯說離繫果者，於此果中且據決定無濫者說。其士用果名寬不定，或是俱生、或無間等。《婆沙》亦應說士用果而不說者，恐濫俱生展轉士用果，以自體望自體非一果故。《正理》所以說士用者，為攝一果中士用果盡，是故別說。各據一義竝不相違。問：此論一果為同何者？解云：或同《婆沙》、或同《正理》，皆無有妨。問：準下論文，五果中士用果，但說相應、俱有因得。何故《正理》說士用果乃有多種，通餘因得？解云：士用果有二，一別士用果，此唯相應、俱有因得；二通士用果，但用功得者，皆名士用果。《正理》據此通士用說。隨其所應，四果全、增上少分，通六因得，各據一義竝不相違。 > Regarding '\[As for "by fruit, etc.", it refers to having the same fruit, the same maturation,\] and the same outflow': within fruits, there are three: one fruit, one maturation, and one outflow. This indicates that only when it has the same fruit and so forth with the mind is it called 'following the turns'. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'Is it not the case that outflow and maturation are also subsumed under "one fruit"? Why are outflow and maturation spoken of apart from "one fruit"? (Explanation: The word "fruit" is broad and should subsume the other two. What is the intention in speaking of the two apart from fruit?)' The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'Indeed so. The mention here of "one fruit" only subsumes the virile fruit (puruṣakāra-phala) and the fruit of disconnection (visaṃyoga-phala). (Explanation: In terms of broad discourse, the name "fruit" is indeed so, also subsuming the other two. But when stating "one fruit" among these ten \[factors of\] following the turns, discussing it in particular, it only subsumes the virile fruit and the fruit of disconnection.)' Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra raises an objection: 'Because this word is broad, does it not also subsume outflow and maturation? (Explanation: Is it not the case that because the phrase "one fruit" is broad, it also subsumes the other two?)' The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'Although the word also subsumes them, they are not what is explained here. Now, virile fruits are of four kinds altogether: co-arising, immediate, separated, and non-arising. This shows fruits that do not occur simultaneously with their cause, in order to refute the sole attachment that a virile fruit exists within an aggregated collection co-arising with its cause. Because \[the members of\] this aggregated collection are mutually fruits, and since a self-entity is not the virile fruit of its own self-entity, this shows that within that co-arising, aggregated virile fruit there is no meaning of "one fruit"; therefore, outflow and maturation are adduced separately.' Explanation: Although the name 'one fruit' is broad and also subsumes outflow and maturation, they are not what is explained in this context of 'following the turns'. 'One fruit' here only subsumes the virile fruit and the fruit of disconnection. An external opponent raises a latent objection: 'Here, in explaining the meaning of "following the turns", simply stating "one fruit" is sufficient to explain following the turns; why is it necessary to speak separately of maturation and outflow?' Therefore, it is now explained: in order to dispel doubts and objections, it is necessary to speak of those two. Why is this? In general, virile fruits are of four kinds: 1. The co-arising virile fruit, which refers to the reciprocal fruit at the same time of coexistent causes and associated causes, and what is obtained through other simultaneous activities. 2. The immediate virile fruit, which refers to the immediately antecedent condition, and what is obtained through other contiguous activities. 3. The separated virile fruit, such as the fruit of maturation, or a farmer planting in spring and harvesting in autumn. 4. The non-arising virile fruit, which refers to analytical cessation, whose essence does not arise. This is a general explanation that virile fruits are of four kinds altogether. Now, when 'one fruit' is spoken of among these ten \[factors of\] following the turns, it does not mean the reciprocal co-arising virile fruit, because a self-entity is not the virile fruit of its own self-entity, and thus lacks the meaning of 'one fruit'. It takes what is obtained through other simultaneous activities; among the immediate, it excludes the same nature and takes the immediate of a different nature; among the separated, it excludes the fruit of maturation and takes other temporally distant virile fruits; and it takes the non-arising fruit of analytical cessation. Lest those who do not understand hear the phrase 'one fruit' and suppose it subsumes the reciprocal co-arising virile fruit, and cling to there being only co-arising virile fruits, therefore at this time, it additionally shows outflow and maturation as fruits that are definitely not simultaneous with their cause, in order to refute the sole attachment that a virile fruit exists within an aggregated collection co-arising with its cause. The word 'co-arising' excludes the immediate and so forth; the 'aggregated collection' excludes other things obtained through co-arising activity. The phrase 'aggregated collection' demonstrates their meaning of mutually being causes. Why is it necessary to exclude this virile fruit? Because it is not 'one fruit': mutually serving as fruit shows that oneself is also the fruit of the other, while a self-entity is not the fruit of its own self-entity. The parts show that it is not its own fruit; because it does not share its own fruit with the other, there is no meaning of 'one fruit'. Not only does this refute the sole attachment to the reciprocal co-arising virile fruit, it also concurrently reveals the absence of the meaning of 'one fruit'. By dispelling this objection, outflow and maturation are spoken of separately outside of 'one fruit'. Question: If we follow Mahāvibhāṣā fascicles 16 and 155, both state: '"One fruit" means the fruit of disconnection.' But the Nyāyānusāra states: '"One fruit" means virile and disconnection.' Are they not contradictory? Explanation: The Mahāvibhāṣā speaks only of the fruit of disconnection because, among these fruits, it speaks strictly of that which is definitive and free of confusion. The name 'virile fruit' is broad and indefinite, being either co-arising, immediate, and so forth. The Mahāvibhāṣā could also have spoken of the virile fruit, but did not, because it feared confusion with the reciprocal co-arising virile fruit, since a self-entity with respect to its own self-entity is not 'one fruit'. The reason why the Nyāyānusāra speaks of virile \[fruit\] is to exhaustively subsume the virile fruit within 'one fruit', and therefore speaks of it separately. Each relies on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other at all. Question: Which of the two does 'one fruit' in this treatise agree with? Explanation: Whether it agrees with the Mahāvibhāṣā or with the Nyāyānusāra, either is unproblematic. Question: Based on the text of the treatise below, among the five fruits, the virile fruit is said to be obtained only through associated causes and coexistent causes. Why does the Nyāyānusāra state that virile fruits are of multiple kinds, obtained through other causes as well? Explanation: Virile fruits are of two kinds: 1. Specific virile fruit, which is obtained only through associated and coexistent causes; 2. General virile fruit, where whatever is obtained through effort is called a virile fruit. The Nyāyānusāra speaks based on this general virile fruit. Accordingly, all four fruits and a minor portion of the dominant fruit are obtainable through the six causes; each relies on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other at all. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.30) - [Next: 6.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.32) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.6.31) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.32) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨藏顯宗論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!abhidharmakosasastrakarikabhasya*zh-xuanzang.9.10) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.31) · Pramāṇa