俱舍論記 7.42

7.42

「心心所法至如是決定耶」者，問。心、心所法於所緣境有三定，於所依根亦有三定耶？於所緣三定者，一處定、二事定、三剎那定。處定者，謂眼識及相應法唯緣色處，定不緣聲處等。事定者，就色處中總有二十種，或一事別緣、或二事合緣，乃至二十事合緣，隨其所應於此事定，不於彼事，故名事定。剎那定者，復就事中剎那剎那別緣，剎那意顯相住當義。若應於此剎那起即起，若緣闕即不起，名剎那定，非於餘剎那。如眼識及相應法，於所緣作三定。耳、鼻、舌、身識及相應法，各於自所緣三定亦爾。意識及相應法於所緣三定者，意識所緣通十二處，緣此有法處定，不緣無法處，名處定。事定者，就十二處有法中，隨其所應，或緣此事定，不緣餘事。剎那定者，復就事中剎那剎那別緣，應言亦有如是決定者。答：應言於所依六根亦有如是三種決定。處定者，謂眼識及相應法於眼處定，以依眼故，不依耳等。雖亦依意，今據別依顯法差別。事定者，就處定中復有男女、天人等眼不同，或異熟、長養等眼別。眼識及相應法，應依此事定，不依餘事，名事定。剎那定者，復就事中剎那剎那定，謂眼識及相應法應於此剎那，不於餘剎那。問：如一剎那眼根，唯與一識為依，亦通與多識為依？解云：通與多識為依。故此論第三解根增上中云「於了眾色為通因故，識隨眼根有明昧故。色則不然，二相違故。乃至意根於法亦爾。」又此論第一說「如眼與意專一色時，餘色、聲、香、味、觸等謝。緣彼境界五識身等，住未來世畢竟不生，由彼不能緣過去境，緣不具故得非擇滅。」以此故知，一剎那眼容與多識為依。若言根、境、識三剎那剎那一具有現前，眼見色時，於此時中應無眼識得非擇滅，即與前文相違。若說眼根通與多識為依，可得此念，隨其所應，或容了此色、或容了彼色。如有一人於此念中見房內色，若於此念在於房外即見房外色。若言眼根唯發一識，有何道理？此念唯應此識現前了於此色，非餘識了耶？若言此念房內見色，即房內根、識現前，房外根、識得非擇滅。若於此念房外見色，即房外根、識現前，房內根、識得非擇滅。但一眼根唯發一識非多識依者，此亦非理。如異熟因感得十年命及十年眼，雖無前後次第，性相已定。如何此異熟眼，或見此色此類眼現前，爾時應見彼色眼得非擇滅。或見彼色彼類眼根現前，爾時應見此色眼得非擇減。又若此處十年緣會，即十年見此色。設於餘處十年緣會，復十年見彼色。若爾，即有眼長命短過也。以此故知，此一念眼容見彼此多色、容發彼此多識。又解：如一念青色，或別生一識，或與二色共生一識，乃至二十色共生一識。一念眼根應知亦爾，或別發緣一色識，乃至或能發緣二十種色識。此即以根分同於境。如眼識及相應法於所依有三定，耳、鼻、舌、身識及相應法各於自依三定亦爾。意識及相應法於所依意根三定者，處定，謂定依意處，非依眼等。事定，謂就處定中復有多種，或有漏、無漏意別，或三界、三性、三學等意別，如二十心相生中說此心後能生爾所心等，或天、人等意別。應依此意，不依餘意，名為事定。剎那定，謂復就事定中，若此剎那意識及相應法，定依此根，不依餘根。如意識及相應法，定至生相依現在意根，名剎那定。若流至現，依過去意根。若至過去，還以過去為依。如是過去展轉相望，皆名剎那定，從生相已去有前後故。可說此剎那識定依此意。生相已前未定前後，諸心相望所依不定，故不說之。若出二無心定心、心所，即以過去為依，名剎那定。應知此中五識及相應法，於所依、所緣三定皆通三世。若意識及相應法，於所緣三定，及於所依處、事二定，皆通三世。於所依剎那定，至生相已去方名剎那定。

Regarding 'Do mind and mental factors have such determinations [with respect to the supporting bases] as well?': this is a question. Mind and mental factors have three determinations with respect to the objective field; do they also have three determinations with respect to the supporting sense-faculties? The three determinations with respect to the objective field are: first, determination of locus; second, determination of entity; third, determination of the moment. 'Determination of locus' means that visual consciousness and its associated dharmas cognize only the locus of visible form, and definitely do not cognize the locus of sound, and so forth. 'Determination of entity' means that within the locus of visible form there are twenty kinds in total; either one entity is cognized separately, or two entities are cognized together, up to twenty entities cognized together. As appropriate, it is determined with respect to this entity and not that entity; hence it is called determination of entity. 'Determination of the moment' means, furthermore within the entities, cognizing separately moment by moment, where 'moment' expresses the meaning of the characteristics of abiding and arrival. If it ought to arise at this moment, it arises; if the conditions are lacking, it does not arise; this is called determination of the moment, not at another moment. Just as visual consciousness and its associated dharmas have three determinations with respect to the objective field, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile consciousnesses and their associated dharmas each likewise have three determinations with respect to their own objective fields. As for the three determinations of mental consciousness and its associated dharmas with respect to the objective field: the objective field of mental consciousness extends over the twelve loci; cognizing an existent dharma in this locus is determination of locus, not cognizing a nonexistent locus, which is called determination of locus. 'Determination of entity' means that, among the existent dharmas of the twelve loci, as appropriate, it is determined to cognize this entity and not other entities. 'Determination of the moment' means, furthermore within the entities, cognizing separately moment by moment. 'One should say that there are also such determinations' is the answer: one should say that with respect to the six supporting faculties there are also these three kinds of determination. 'Determination of locus' means that visual consciousness and its associated dharmas are determined to the locus of the eye, because relying on the eye, they do not rely on the ear and so forth. Although they also rely on the mind, here the distinction of dharmas is shown based on their specific support. 'Determination of entity' means that, within the determination of locus, there are differences such as male, female, deva, and human eyes, or differences between fruition-matured and nourished eyes. Visual consciousness and its associated dharmas must be determined to rely on this entity and not on other entities; this is called determination of entity. 'Determination of the moment' means, furthermore within the entities, determination moment by moment, meaning visual consciousness and its associated dharmas must be at this moment and not at another moment. Question: Does the eye faculty of a single moment serve as the support for only one consciousness, or does it also serve generally as the support for multiple consciousnesses? Explanation: It serves generally as the support for multiple consciousnesses. Therefore, in the third fascicle of this treatise, in explaining the predominance of the faculties, it says: 'Because it is the general cause for discerning multiple visible forms, and because consciousness is clear or dim according to the eye faculty. Visible form is not so, because the two are contrary. … Up to the mind faculty with respect to dharmas is also like this.' Furthermore, the first fascicle of this treatise states: 'When the eye and the mind are dedicated to one visible form, the other visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, and so forth cease. The five groups of consciousness and so forth that cognize those objects remain in the future, never arising; because they cannot cognize past objects, due to the incompleteness of conditions, they obtain non-analytical cessation.' From this, we know that the eye of a single moment can serve as the support for multiple consciousnesses. If one said that faculty, object, and consciousness all become present moment by moment in a one-to-one manner, then when the eye sees visible form, at that time there should be no visual consciousness obtaining non-analytical cessation, which would contradict the earlier passage. If it is said that the eye faculty serves generally as the support for multiple consciousnesses, then at this moment, as appropriate, it may discern this visible form or may discern that visible form. For example, if a person at this moment is inside a room, they see the visible forms inside the room; if at this moment they are outside the room, they see the visible forms outside the room. If one were to say that the eye faculty generates only one consciousness, what principle would dictate that at this moment only this consciousness should become present to discern this visible form, and not other consciousnesses? If one were to say that seeing form inside the room at this moment means the faculty and consciousness inside the room become present, while the faculty and consciousness outside the room obtain non-analytical cessation; and if seeing form outside the room at this moment means the faculty and consciousness outside the room become present, while the faculty and consciousness inside the room obtain non-analytical cessation; and that a single eye faculty generates only one consciousness and is not the support for multiple consciousnesses—this too would be unreasonable. For example, fruition-matured cause brings about ten years of lifespan and ten years of the eye faculty; although they have no sequence of before and after, their intrinsic nature and characteristics are already determined. How could it be that when this fruition-matured eye sees this visible form, this type of eye becomes present, and at that time the eye that ought to see that visible form obtains non-analytical cessation; or when it sees that visible form, that type of eye faculty becomes present, and at that time the eye that ought to see this visible form obtains non-analytical cessation? Furthermore, if the conditions meet at this place for ten years, one sees this form for ten years; if conditions were to meet at another place for ten years, one would again see that form for ten years. If that were so, there would be the fault of the eye faculty being long and the lifespan being short. From this, we know that this eye of a single moment can see multiple visible forms of this and that, and can generate multiple consciousnesses of this and that. Another explanation: Just as the blue color of a single moment may separately generate one consciousness, or generate one consciousness together with two colors, up to generating one consciousness together with twenty colors; the eye faculty of a single moment should be known to be likewise: it may separately generate a consciousness cognizing one color, up to being able to generate a consciousness cognizing twenty kinds of colors. This is to equate the faculty with the object. Just as visual consciousness and its associated dharmas have three determinations with respect to the support, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile consciousnesses and their associated dharmas each likewise have three determinations with respect to their own support. As for the three determinations of mental consciousness and its associated dharmas with respect to the supporting mind faculty: 'determination of locus' means that they are definitely supported by the locus of mind, not by the eye, and so forth. 'Determination of entity' means that, within the determination of locus, there are many kinds: the distinctions of sāsrava and anāsrava minds, or the distinctions of the minds of the three realms, the three natures, the three stages of training, and so forth—as stated in the взаимное arising of the twenty minds, such minds can arise after this mind—or distinctions between deva and human minds. They must rely on this mind and not on other minds; this is called determination of entity. 'Determination of the moment' means, furthermore within the determination of entity, that mental consciousness and its associated dharmas of this moment definitely rely on this faculty and not on other faculties. For example, when mental consciousness and its associated dharmas definitely reach the characteristic of arising, they rely on the present mind faculty; this is called determination of the moment. If it flows into the present, it relies on the past mind faculty. If it reaches the past, it again takes the past as support. In this way, viewed mutually in succession within the past, they are all called determination of the moment, because from the characteristic of arising onward there is before and after. One can say that the consciousness of this moment definitely relies on this mind. Prior to the characteristic of arising, before and after are not yet determined; when viewing the various minds in relation to one another, their support is indeterminate, hence it is not spoken of. If one emerges from the two mindless absorptions, the mind and mental factors take the past as their support; this is called determination of the moment. It should be known that here, the five consciousnesses and their associated dharmas, with respect to the three determinations of support and object, all extend across the three times. As for mental consciousness and its associated dharmas, the three determinations of the object, and the two determinations of locus and entity of the support, all extend across the three times; regarding the determination of the moment of the support, only when reaching the characteristic of arising onward is it called determination of the moment.