俱舍論記 6.35

6.35

「此中心王至為心俱有因」者，此下約法明俱有因。此前說中心王對心所等為因通局云：且約二定已上無覆無記心中說，唯有心王及大地法十。此十一種各有大少四相，合有九十九法。心王望九十八法極少，猶與五十八法為俱有因，謂十大地法，及彼四十本相，心八本、隨相，名五十八法。除大地上四十隨相，以隔遠故力不及彼，非俱有因。若以五十八法却望心王，除心四隨相，以劣弱故力不及彼，餘五十四為心俱有因。如心王對九十八法展轉作法，大地法十一一作法，準此應知。若心上大生望九十八法，與五十八法為俱有因，謂大地法十，并四十本相，及心王，并心王上三大、四少相，除大地法上四十隨相。五十八法望心大生，五十五為俱有因，除心上小住、異、滅。又解：心王上大生與十八法為俱有因，謂大地法十，及心王，并心上大住、異、滅，并四少相。此十八法却望心上大生，十五法為俱有因，除心上少住、異滅。兩解各有一意。前解意以大生與所相心其力均等故，望彼大地法上四十大相亦得為俱有因。後解意如彼心王，但與背上大相及小相為因，若向前但與相應法及相應法上大四相為因。向後向前各取第二重，不能與相應法上小四相為因，以彼遠故，力不及第三重。此大生亦爾，能與心王及相應法為因，但至第二重。亦不能與相應上大四相為因，以隔遠故，力不及第三重。如心王上大生作此兩解，應知心王上大住、異、滅，及大地法上四十大相，皆作兩解，准此應知。若心王上少生望九十八法，唯與大生為俱有因。九十八法却望小生，即有五法為因，謂心及心上大四相。如心上小生，應知心王上小住、異、滅，及大地法上四十小相，准此應知。問：心上小相不相心王，與大地法上大相相似，何故大地法上大相與心為因，心上小相非心因耶？念法師已前諸德解云：大地法望心王，具相應、俱有二因，故大地法上大相望心王為俱有因。心王上大相望心王，但為俱有因。故大相上小相望心王，非俱有因。破云：如心隨轉戒上大相，是心隨轉法，即望心為俱有因。此所相戒望心，但有俱有因，無相應因。如何彼能相望心得為俱有因？故說非理。今解云：大地法上四十大相，生法力強，與所相法等，故望心王為因。心王小相，生法力劣，非等所相法，故望心王非因。故《顯宗》第九云「本相與法其力等故。」又《正理》云「何緣心隨相非心俱有因？不由彼力心得生故，非心與彼互為果故，彼於一法有功能故。又與心王非一果故，聚中多分非彼果故。即由如是所說多因，隨相不名心隨轉法。若爾，云何心能與彼為俱有因？由隨心王生等諸位，彼得轉故（已上論文）。」

Regarding the passage from "In this, the primary mind..." to "...are the simultaneous cause (sahabhū-hetu) of the mind": below this, [the text] clarifies the simultaneous cause with respect to conditioned phenomena (dharma). The scope of being causes, spoken of earlier, between the primary mind and the mental factors (caitta) is explained as follows: First, explaining provisionally in terms of a neutral and non-obscured (anivṛtāvyākṛta) mind in the Second Dhyāna and above, there are only the primary mind and the ten universal mental factors (mahābhūmika-dharma). Each of these eleven kinds has four major and [four] minor characteristics (lakṣaṇa), totaling ninety-nine dharmas. Taking the primary mind in relation to the ninety-eight dharmas, at the very least it still serves as a simultaneous cause for fifty-eight dharmas: namely, the ten universal mental factors and their forty primary characteristics (mūla-lakṣaṇa), plus the mind's own eight primary and secondary characteristics (anulakṣaṇa)—these are called the fifty-eight dharmas. The forty secondary characteristics on the universal mental factors are excluded, because being separated and distant, its force does not reach them, so it is not their simultaneous cause. If we turn back from the fifty-eight dharmas to the primary mind, excluding the mind's four secondary characteristics because their force does not reach it due to being inferior and weak, the remaining fifty-four dharmas are the simultaneous cause of the mind. Just as the primary mind is applied mutually against the ninety-eight dharmas, each of the eleven universal mental factors is applied likewise; this should be understood accordingly. If the major origination (jāti) on the mind is taken in relation to the ninety-eight dharmas, it serves as a simultaneous cause for fifty-eight dharmas: namely, the ten universal mental factors together with their forty primary characteristics, as well as the primary mind along with the three major and four minor characteristics on the primary mind, excluding the forty secondary characteristics on the universal mental factors. Turning from the fifty-eight dharmas to the mind's major origination, fifty-five are its simultaneous cause, excluding the minor subsistence (sthiti), decay (jarā), and cessation (anityatā) on the mind. Another explanation says: The major origination on the primary mind is the simultaneous cause for eighteen dharmas: namely, the ten universal mental factors, the primary mind, along with the major subsistence, decay, and cessation on the mind, and its four minor characteristics. When these eighteen dharmas turn back to the major origination on the mind, fifteen dharmas are its simultaneous cause, excluding the minor subsistence, decay, and cessation on the mind. Each of the two explanations has its own rationale. The intention of the former explanation is that because the power of the major origination is equal to that of the characterized mind, in relation to the forty major characteristics on those universal mental factors it can also serve as a simultaneous cause. The intention of the latter explanation is that just as that primary mind only serves as a cause for the major and minor characteristics on its back, and going forward it only serves as a cause for the associated dharmas and the four major characteristics on the associated dharmas—taking in each direction, forward and backward, only the second tier—it cannot serve as a cause for the four minor characteristics on the associated dharmas, because they are distant and its power does not reach the third tier. This major origination is also like this: it can serve as a cause for the primary mind and the associated dharmas, reaching only to the second tier. It also cannot serve as a cause for the four major characteristics on the associated [dharmas], because they are separated and distant, so its power does not reach the third tier. Just as these two explanations are made for the major origination on the primary mind, it should be understood that the major subsistence, decay, and cessation on the primary mind, as well as the forty major characteristics on the universal mental factors, all admit of two explanations; this should be understood accordingly. If the minor origination on the primary mind is taken in relation to the ninety-eight dharmas, it is the simultaneous cause only for major origination. Turning back from the ninety-eight dharmas to minor origination, there are five dharmas that serve as its causes: namely, the mind and the four major characteristics on the mind. As with minor origination on the mind, so should it be understood accordingly for minor subsistence, decay, and cessation on the primary mind, as well as the forty minor characteristics on the universal mental factors. Question: The minor characteristics on the mind do not characterize the primary mind, which resembles the major characteristics on the universal mental factors; why is it that the major characteristics on the universal mental factors serve as causes for the mind, while the minor characteristics on the mind do not serve as causes for the mind? The explanation of the venerable masters prior to Master Nian says: The universal mental factors, in relation to the primary mind, possess both associated cause (saṃprayuktaka-hetu) and simultaneous cause; therefore the major characteristics on the universal mental factors, in relation to the primary mind, are simultaneous causes. The major characteristics on the primary mind, in relation to the primary mind, are merely simultaneous causes. Therefore the minor characteristics on the major characteristics, in relation to the primary mind, are not simultaneous causes. Refutation: Take the major characteristics on morality that conforms to the mind (cittānuparivartin-śīla): they are dharmas conforming to the mind, and thus in relation to the mind are simultaneous causes. This characterized morality, in relation to the mind, has only simultaneous cause and no associated cause. How then can its characterizing [marks] in relation to the mind be simultaneous causes? Therefore, that explanation is unreasonable. The present explanation says: The forty major characteristics on the universal mental factors have strong power to generate dharmas, equal to the dharmas they characterize; hence in relation to the primary mind they serve as causes. The minor characteristics of the primary mind have inferior power to generate dharmas, not equal to the dharmas they characterize; hence in relation to the primary mind they do not serve as causes. Therefore, fascicle nine of the Samayapradīpikā (*Xianzong lun) states: 'Because the primary characteristics and the dharmas have equal power.' Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'For what reason are the secondary characteristics of the mind not simultaneous causes of the mind? Because the mind is not brought about through their power, because the mind and they are not mutually effects for each other, and because they have efficacy only with respect to a single dharma. Moreover, because they do not have a single effect together with the primary mind, and because the majority within the assemblage are not their effect. It is precisely due to such many reasons as these stated that the secondary characteristics are not called dharmas conforming to the mind. If so, how can the mind serve as a simultaneous cause for them? Because by conforming to the various states of the primary mind such as origination, they are able to function (thus far the treatise text).'