俱舍論記 6.48

6.48

「論曰至皆不為因」者，此釋初句。善、染五蘊展轉為因，更無異說。無記五蘊，四說不同。第一說展轉為因，性類等故。第二說五是色果，顯色為五因。四非色因，顯四不生色。此師意說：四蘊勝故非色因，色蘊劣故與四為因。第三說五是四果，顯四為五因。色非四因，顯色不生四。此師意說：四蘊勢力強，故能為色因。色蘊勢力劣，故非與四為因。第四師說色與四蘊互不為因，俱是無記劣異類故。諸論皆有四說，竝無評家。今解：且以後師為正。故《婆沙》一百三十一云「大種與意處為幾緣？答：所緣、增上。意處與大種為幾緣？答：因、增上。因者一因，謂異熟因。增上者，如前說。」解云：無記四大既望意處，展轉相望不言有同類因。以此准知，無記色蘊望無記四蘊，展轉相望非同類因者為正。問：若言無記色蘊望無記行蘊無同類因，何故《婆沙》一百三十一云「大種與法處為幾緣？答：因、所緣、增上。因者七因，謂生等及俱有、同類。所緣，謂與身識相應法，及意識相應法為所緣。增上者，如前說。」准彼論文，大種望法處中四相為俱有因。言同類因者，凡同時相望為俱有因，異時相望亦得為同類因。故四大望法處中四相得為同類因。四大是色蘊，四相是行蘊，是即無記色蘊望無記行蘊得為同類因。何故乃言無記色蘊望無記四蘊非同類因者為正？解云：此論中言無記色蘊望無記四蘊，展轉相望非同類因者，望心、心所說，非望四相。以色蘊望行蘊中四相，展轉相望定為同類因，此在不疑。又解：從多分說。雖無記色蘊望無記行蘊中四相得作同類因。若望無記受、想、識三，及行蘊中除四相餘法，即非同類因。從多分說故。言無記色蘊望無記四蘊非同類因，此中總望四蘊作法。

On "The treatise says [...] all are not causes": this explains the first line of verse. The wholesome and defiled five aggregates are mutually causes; there is no differing explanation. Regarding the neutral five aggregates, four explanations differ. The first explanation states that they are mutually causes, because their nature and category are equal. The second explanation states that the five are the results of visible matter, showing that visible matter is the cause of the five; the [other] four are not causes of visible matter, showing that the four do not produce visible matter. This master's meaning is: because the four aggregates are superior, they are not causes of visible matter; because the aggregate of visible matter is inferior, it serves as cause for the four. The third explanation states that the five are the results of the four, showing that the four are causes of the five; visible matter is not the cause of the four, showing that visible matter does not produce the four. This master's meaning is: because the force of the four aggregates is strong, they can serve as causes for visible matter; because the force of the aggregate of visible matter is inferior, it does not serve as cause for the four. The fourth master says that visible matter and the four aggregates are mutually not causes, because they are both neutral, inferior, and of different kinds. All treatises have these four explanations, and none provide a critical judgment. Now, explaining it: provisionally, take the latter master's as correct. Hence, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 131, says: "For how many conditions do the great elements serve with respect to the mind base (manāyatana)? Answer: objective condition (ālambana-pratyaya) and empowering condition (adhipati-pratyaya). For how many conditions does the mind base serve with respect to the great elements? Answer: causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) and empowering condition. 'Causal condition' is one cause, namely the maturation cause (vipāka-hetu). 'Empowering condition' is as explained before." The explanation says: since the neutral four great elements and the mind base, when considered mutually with respect to each other, are not said to have a homogeneous cause, by this criterion we know that the view that the neutral aggregate of visible matter and the neutral four aggregates, considered mutually with respect to each other, are not homogeneous causes is the correct one. Question: If one says that the neutral aggregate of visible matter has no homogeneous cause with respect to the neutral aggregate of formations, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 131, say: "For how many conditions do the great elements serve with respect to the phenomenon base (dharmāyatana)? Answer: causal condition, objective condition, and empowering condition. 'Causal condition' means seven causes, namely production and so forth, as well as the co-existent and homogeneous [causes]. 'Objective condition' means serving as an objective support for phenomena associated with the body consciousness, and phenomena associated with the mental consciousness. 'Empowering condition' is as explained before"? According to that treatise text, the great elements serve as co-existent causes for the four characteristics in the phenomenon base. Regarding the statement "homogeneous cause": generally, when considered simultaneously, they are co-existent causes; when considered at different times, they can also be homogeneous causes. Therefore, the four great elements can serve as homogeneous causes for the four characteristics in the phenomenon base. The four great elements are the aggregate of visible matter, and the four characteristics are the aggregate of formations; thus the neutral aggregate of visible matter can serve as a homogeneous cause for the neutral aggregate of formations. Why then say that the view that the neutral aggregate of visible matter is not a homogeneous cause for the neutral aggregate of the four aggregates is the correct one? The explanation says: what this treatise states about the neutral aggregate of visible matter and the neutral four aggregates mutually not being homogeneous causes is stated with respect to the mind and mental concomitants, not with respect to the four characteristics. For the aggregate of visible matter with respect to the four characteristics in the aggregate of formations definitely serves mutually as a homogeneous cause—this is beyond doubt. Another explanation: it is spoken from the standpoint of the majority. Although the neutral aggregate of visible matter can serve as a homogeneous cause with respect to the four characteristics in the neutral aggregate of formations, if viewed with respect to the neutral three aggregates of feeling, perception, and consciousness, and the remaining phenomena in the aggregate of formations aside from the four characteristics, it is not a homogeneous cause. Because it is spoken from the standpoint of the majority, it says that the neutral aggregate of visible matter is not a homogeneous cause for the neutral four aggregates; herein, it treats the matter with respect to the four aggregates as a whole.