[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) › 6.37 # 俱舍論記 6.37 俱舍論記 6.37 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.37) 「此說非善至知說有餘」者，論主破第二師。此說非善。所以者何？若言唯十四法望心為俱有因，便違《品類足論》所說故。此中文略，證稍難知。若依《品類足論》第十三〈千問品〉中云「幾有身見為因非有身見因等者，二，非有身見為因非有身見因（解云：二，謂滅、道二諦）二應分別。謂苦聖諦，或有身見為因非有身見因，或有身見為因亦有身見因，或非有身見為因非有身見因。有身見為因非有身見因者，謂除過去、現在見苦所斷隨眠，及彼相應、俱有等苦諦。亦除過去、現在見集所斷遍行隨眠，及彼相應、俱有苦諦。亦除未來有身見相應苦諦，亦除未來有身見，及彼相應法生老住無常諸餘染污苦諦。有身見為因亦有身見因者，謂前所除法。非有身見為因非有身見因者，謂不染污苦諦。集聖諦亦爾（已上論文）。」解云：彼文以四諦體望有身見為因通局。因者，謂四緣中因緣，以五因為性，除能作。於中相望，隨有多少皆得為因，非要具五。滅、道二諦是無漏故，非有身見為因，非有身見因。苦、集二諦應當分別。先以苦諦對有身見得成三句，以必無有不從有身見為因生與有身見為因者。所以無與有身見為因，非以有身見為因一單句也。又凡諸論作法。若取多即除少。若取少即標名。省言論也。第一句中即是取多除少。以一切染污苦諦皆從有身見生。却望有身見為因者少，不為因者多。今欲取多，故先除少。就除中文有四節。第一節除過去、現在見苦所斷隨眠，及彼相應、俱有等苦諦。相應謂相應法，俱有謂四相，等謂等取得也。若隨眠及相應法望有身見，有同類、遍行、相應、俱有四因，無異熟因。若四相望有身見，有同類、遍行、俱有因，無相應、異熟因。若得望有身見，唯有同類因，無餘四因。第二節亦除過去、現在見集所斷遍行隨眠，及彼相應、俱有苦諦。此隨眠等望有身見，唯是遍行因，無餘四因。得非遍行因，故不言等。第三節亦除未來有身見上相應苦諦，不除有身見，以未來有身見用過、現有身見為因，未來無前後故，不得與有身見為因，故彼有身見是單句攝。相應法望有身見，得有相應、俱有因，無同類、遍行、異熟因。第四節亦除未來有身見上生、老、住、無常，及相應法上生、老、住、無常。此第四節文不除有身見，以單句攝故。亦不除相應法，以第三節除故。但除彼法上大四相。既但言生、老、住、無常，明知是大四相；若小四相，應言生生等。此有身見上及相應法上大四相，望有身見，未來無前後故，不得言同類、遍行因。非是相應法故，不得言相應因。其異熟因是不善、善有漏，感無覆無記異熟果。彼四相體是有覆，有身見又染污，復不可言是異熟因，既入所除，即是有身見為因亦有身見因俱句攝。既言有因，不是俱有因，更是何因？相應法上大相望有身見既得俱有因，准知大地法上四十大相望心王亦得為俱有因。以此故知，唯十四法與心為俱有因者，定為非理。應知《俱舍》但引《品類足》第四節文證也。諸餘染污苦諦者，應知即是三世見滅、見道、修道所斷染污法，及過、現見集所斷不遍隨眠相應、俱有等，及遍行隨眠相應、俱有法上得，及未來見苦所斷有身見，有身見上小四相并得，及身見相應法上小四相并得，及見苦所斷餘九隨眠相應、俱有等，及未來見集所斷法。此等并是以有身見為因，非與有身見為因，是名諸餘染污苦諦。第二句，以有身見為因亦與有身見為因者，謂即是前所除諸法。第三句，非以有身見為因非與有身見為因者，謂修所斷不染污苦諦。如苦聖諦，集聖諦望有身見應知亦爾。但以集名替於苦處，餘義皆同，以苦集諦是一物故。此約諦體作法，故無寬狹。近代諸師言：集諦非無有異，謂除有身見。彼謂迷諦起惑。此說不然，謬之甚也。引《品類足》但取第一、第二句為證，餘者同文故來。《品類足》當舊《眾事分》，彼文稍錯。以過去第一節文，但云除過去、現在見苦所斷使。彼相應苦諦，不言俱有等，即不除俱有及得。第二節文，但言除過去、現在見集所斷一切遍行使，彼相應苦諦復不除俱有法，餘文同《品類足》。有餘師為欲成立唯十四法為心俱有因，故不誦及彼相應法，但言除未來有身見生、老、住、無常。有身見相應法上大四相既不入所除中，以此故知，大地法上四十大相亦不與心為俱有因。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師言：彼《品類足》必應作如是誦。除未來有身見，及彼相應法生、老、住、無常。假設彼論無及彼相應法。或應准俱有因義知說有餘，以諸論皆說相應法上大四相是心隨轉法，即是與心互為俱有因義。 > Regarding \[the text from\] "This explanation is not good" to "\[one\] should know that the teaching is incomplete": The author of the treatise refutes the second master. This explanation is not good. Why is that? If one claims that only fourteen dharmas are simultaneous causes with respect to the mind, this contradicts what is taught in the Prakaraṇapāda. The text here is brief, and the evidence is somewhat difficult to understand. Relying on the thirteenth chapter, "A Thousand Questions," of the Prakaraṇapāda, it says: "How many have the view of individuality (satkāyadṛṣṭi) as cause but are not causes of the view of individuality, and so on? Two are not causes of the view of individuality nor do they have the view of individuality as cause (explanation: the two refer to the two truths of cessation and the path). Two should be differentiated: namely, the noble truth of suffering either has the view of individuality as cause and is not a cause of the view of individuality, or has the view of individuality as cause and is also a cause of the view of individuality, or neither has the view of individuality as cause nor is a cause of the view of individuality. Those having the view of individuality as cause and not being causes of the view of individuality are: excluding past and present anusayas abandoned by seeing suffering, as well as their associated, coexistent, etc., truths of suffering; also excluding past and present universal (sarvatraga) anusayas abandoned by seeing origination, as well as their associated and coexistent truths of suffering; also excluding the truth of suffering associated with the future view of individuality; and also excluding the birth, aging, duration, and impermanence of the future view of individuality and of its associated dharmas, all other defiled truths of suffering. Those having the view of individuality as cause and also being causes of the view of individuality are: the aforementioned excluded dharmas. Those neither having the view of individuality as cause nor being causes of the view of individuality are: undefiled truths of suffering. The noble truth of origination is likewise (end of quotation from the treatise)." Explanation: That text uses the substance of the four truths to examine the extent to which they serve as causes with respect to the view of individuality. "Cause" refers to the cause-condition (hetu-pratyaya) among the four conditions, having five causes as its nature, excluding the efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu). When compared among them, whatever number is present can serve as cause; it is not necessary to have all five. Because the two truths of cessation and path are uncontaminated (anāsrava), they do not have the view of individuality as cause, nor are they causes of the view of individuality. The two truths of suffering and origination should be differentiated. First, when comparing the truth of suffering with the view of individuality, three alternatives are formed, because there is definitely nothing that does not arise with the view of individuality as cause and yet serves as a cause of the view of individuality. Therefore, there is no single proposition of "being a cause of the view of individuality and not having the view of individuality as cause." Furthermore, whenever treatises formulate rules, if they take the many, they exclude the few; if they take the few, they specify their names—this is to abbreviate the discussion. In the first alternative, taking the many and excluding the few is employed: because all defiled truths of suffering arise from the view of individuality, when looking back, those that are causes of the view of individuality are few, while those that are not causes are many. Wanting now to take the many, it first excludes the few. Within the exclusions, the text has four sections. The first section excludes the past and present anusayas abandoned by seeing suffering, as well as their associated, coexistent, etc., truths of suffering. "Associated" means associated dharmas; "coexistent" means the four characteristics; "etc." means including acquisition (prāpti). When anusayas and associated dharmas are considered with respect to the view of individuality, they have four causes: homogeneous (sabhāga), universal (sarvatraga), associated (samprayuktaka), and simultaneous (sahabhū); they lack the maturation cause (vipāka-hetu). When the four characteristics are considered with respect to the view of individuality, they have homogeneous, universal, and simultaneous causes, lacking associated and maturation causes. When acquisition is considered with respect to the view of individuality, it has only the homogeneous cause, lacking the other four causes. The second section also excludes past and present universal anusayas abandoned by seeing origination, as well as their associated and coexistent truths of suffering. When these anusayas, etc., are considered with respect to the view of individuality, they are only universal causes, lacking the other four causes. Acquisition is not a universal cause, so it does not say "etc." The third section also excludes the associated truth of suffering on the future view of individuality; it does not exclude the view of individuality \[itself\], because the future view of individuality takes past and present views of individuality as causes, and because in the future there is no before and after, it cannot serve as a cause of the view of individuality; thus that view of individuality is included in the single proposition. Associated dharmas, with respect to the view of individuality, can have associated and simultaneous causes, lacking homogeneous, universal, and maturation causes. The fourth section also excludes the birth, aging, duration, and impermanence on the future view of individuality, as well as the birth, aging, duration, and impermanence on its associated dharmas. The text of this fourth section does not exclude the view of individuality \[itself\], because it is subsumed under the single proposition; nor does it exclude the associated dharmas, because they were excluded in the third section. It only excludes the four major characteristics on those dharmas. Since it only mentions birth, aging, duration, and impermanence, we clearly know they are the four major characteristics; if they were the four minor characteristics, it would say "secondary birth," and so on. Since there is no before and after in the future, these major characteristics on the view of individuality and on its associated dharmas, with respect to the view of individuality, cannot be called homogeneous or universal causes. Because they are not associated dharmas, they cannot be called associated causes. As for the maturation cause, it is unwholesome or wholesome-with-outflow, which produces an unobstructed-neutral maturation fruit; those four characteristics in substance are obstructed\[-neutral\], and the view of individuality is also defiled, so they cannot be said to be maturation causes either. Since they enter among the excluded \[dharmas\], they are subsumed under the joint alternative of having the view of individuality as cause and also being causes of the view of individuality. Since it is said that they have a cause, if it is not a simultaneous cause, what other cause could it be? Since the major characteristics on associated dharmas obtain \[the status of\] simultaneous causes with respect to the view of individuality, we know by analogy that the forty major characteristics on the universal mental dharmas (mahābhūmika) also obtain \[the status of\] simultaneous causes with respect to the primary mind. By this we know that the claim that only fourteen dharmas are simultaneous causes of the mind is definitively unreasonable. One should know that the Kośa cites only the fourth section of the Prakaraṇapāda text as proof. As for "all other defiled truths of suffering," one should know that these are defiled dharmas of the three times abandoned by seeing cessation, seeing the path, and cultivation; as well as the associated, coexistent, etc., \[dharmas\] of past and present non-universal anusayas abandoned by seeing origination; as well as the acquisitions on the associated and coexistent dharmas of universal anusayas; as well as the future view of individuality abandoned by seeing suffering, along with the four minor characteristics and acquisitions on that view of individuality; as well as the four minor characteristics and acquisitions on the dharmas associated with the view of individuality; as well as the associated, coexistent, etc., \[dharmas\] of the other nine anusayas abandoned by seeing suffering; as well as dharmas abandoned by seeing origination in the future. All of these have the view of individuality as cause, but are not causes of the view of individuality; these are called "all other defiled truths of suffering." In the second alternative, those having the view of individuality as cause and also being causes of the view of individuality are the aforementioned excluded dharmas. In the third alternative, those neither having the view of individuality as cause nor being causes of the view of individuality are undefiled truths of suffering abandoned by cultivation. Just like the noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of origination should be known to be the same with respect to the view of individuality: one merely substitutes the name "origination" in place of "suffering," and the remaining meanings are identical, because the truths of suffering and origination are one entity. This formulation is made based on the substance of the truths, so there is no difference in scope. Recent masters say: "The truth of origination is not without difference; namely, it excludes the view of individuality," which they consider to be delusion arising by being confounded about the truth. This explanation is incorrect and a grave mistake. The quotation from the Prakaraṇapāda takes only the first and second alternatives as proof; the others are cited merely because they belong to the same text. The Prakaraṇapāda corresponds to the old Zhongshifen, and that text has slight errors: in the first section for the past, it only says "excluding the past and present anusayas abandoned by seeing suffering, and their associated truths of suffering," without mentioning "coexistent, etc.," thus not excluding coexistent \[dharmas\] and acquisitions. In the second section, it only says "excluding all past and present universal anusayas abandoned by seeing origination, and their associated truths of suffering," again not excluding coexistent dharmas; the rest of the text is identical to the Prakaraṇapāda. Some other masters, wishing to establish that only fourteen dharmas are simultaneous causes of the mind, do not recite "and their associated dharmas," but only say: "excluding the birth, aging, duration, and impermanence of the future view of individuality." Since the four major characteristics on the dharmas associated with the view of individuality do not enter among the exclusions, one knows from this that the forty major characteristics on the universal mental dharmas are also not simultaneous causes of the mind. The Kashmirian Vaibhāṣikas say: That text of the Prakaraṇapāda must be recited thus: "excluding the future view of individuality, and the birth, aging, duration, and impermanence of its associated dharmas." Even supposing that treatise lacks "and its associated dharmas," one should infer from the meaning of simultaneous cause that the teaching is incomplete, because all treatises say that the four major characteristics on associated dharmas are dharmas that conform to the mind (cittānuvartin), which means that they are mutually simultaneous causes with the mind. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.36) - [Next: 6.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.38) - [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.6.37) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.40) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.6.37) · Pramāṇa