俱舍論記 8.13

8.13

「謂於是處至中有起故」者，答。言是處者，於欲、色界隨其所應得彼定處。雖於此處得彼定者，亦得餘處命終，此中且據此處命終者說。或是處者，隨於何州等處，此顯總處，以於是處得彼定者，亦於餘處得命終故。故知處言據總非別。既言是處受生是處中有現前，明知無色無別方所。若有別處，應往受生彼處中有現前。此大眾部計。彼執無色界別有方所，若無方所如何可說此處之言？問：既言是處生故、既言是處中有現前，此無色界應有方所。解云：言是處者，謂得無色定處，非言無色別有方所。如眼識依眼根，根有方所、識無方所，由斯理趣可言中有傳識受生。又解：言是處生者顯無方所，非言是處別有方所，如言空處。故《婆沙》六十八云「欲界沒生無色界者，無色界生，有不在欲界死處起故（已上論文）。」復從彼沒生欲、色時，即於應所生處中有起。故《婆沙》六十八云「問：無色沒生欲、色界者，彼二中有何處現在前？有作是說：在第四靜慮。評曰：彼不應作是說。所以者何？若無色界有方處者可作是說。然無色界無有方處，何緣遠至第四靜慮？有餘師說：若從彼沒生無色界，即在彼方處中有現在前。彼亦不應作如是說。所以者何？若作是說，彼無色界沒生無色者，云何可爾？應作是說：若欲、色界沒生無色界，及無色沒生無色者，彼無色界沒生欲、色時，彼二中有即當生處而現在前。」問：若如後解，可順《婆沙》評家。若如前解，豈不相違？解云：論主以理為宗，非以《婆沙》評家為量，何勞通釋。問：若如前解，可言中有傳識受生。若如後解，當生處現，何須中有？答：《婆沙》六十九云「問：無色界沒生欲界、色界者，既隨當生處中有現在前，彼無往來，何用中有？答：彼先已造感中有業，雖無往來亦受中有，業力所引必應起故。」又解：欲、色四生，要由中有而生方便，隨染受生。

"Because intermediate existence arises at that very place..." is the answer. As for "that very place", it refers to the place in the desire or form realm where one appropriately attained that absorption. Although one who attains that absorption in this place may also die elsewhere, this statement is made provisionally on the basis of one who dies in this place. Alternatively, "that very place" refers to whichever continent or the like; this indicates the general location, because one who attains that absorption at that place may also die elsewhere. Hence we know that the word "place" refers to the general, not the specific. Since it says that rebirth is taken at that place and intermediate existence becomes present at that place, we clearly know that the formless [realm] has no distinct spatial location. If there were a distinct place, one would have to go to be reborn there and intermediate existence would become present there. This is the doctrine of the Mahāsāṃghika school. They hold that the formless realm has a distinct spatial location; [they ask:] if it has no spatial location, how could one speak of "this place"? Question: Since it says "because one is born at that place" and "because intermediate existence becomes present at that place", should this formless realm not have a spatial location? Explanation: Stating "that place" refers to the place where one attained the formless absorption; it does not say that the formless [realm] has a distinct spatial location. Just as the eye-consciousness relies on the eye faculty, where the faculty has a spatial location while the consciousness has no spatial location, by this reasoning it can be said that intermediate existence transmits consciousness to take rebirth. Another explanation: Stating "born at that place" reveals that it has no spatial location; it does not say that this place has a distinct spatial location, just like speaking of the "abode of space" (ākāśāyatana). Therefore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 68, states: "When one dies in the desire realm and is born into the formless realm, birth in the formless realm occurs where one died in the desire realm" (end of treatise passage). Furthermore, when one dies from that [formless realm] and is born into the desire or form realm, intermediate existence arises right at the place where one is to be born. Thus, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 68, states: "Question: When dying in the formless [realm] and being born in the desire or form realm, where do those two intermediate existences become present? Some say: In the fourth dhyāna. Evaluation: They should not say this. Why? If the formless realm had a spatial location, one could say this. But the formless realm has no spatial location; for what reason would it go as far as the fourth dhyāna? Other masters say: If one dies from there and is born into the formless realm, intermediate existence becomes present right at that spatial location. They too should not say this. Why? If they say this, how could it be so for one dying in that formless realm and being born in the formless realm? One should state: If dying in the desire or form realm and being born in the formless realm, as well as dying in the formless and being born in the formless, when dying from that formless realm and being born into the desire or form [realm], the intermediate existence of those two becomes present right at the place where one is to be born." Question: If it is according to the latter explanation, it accords with the evaluator in the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. If it is according to the former explanation, is it not contradictory? Explanation: The author of the treatise takes reason as primary and does not take the evaluator of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* as the standard; what need is there to reconcile them? Question: If it is according to the former explanation, one can say that intermediate existence transmits consciousness to take rebirth. If it is according to the latter explanation, appearing at the very place of future birth, what need is there for intermediate existence? Answer: The *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 69, states: "Question: When dying in the formless realm and being born in the desire realm or form realm, since intermediate existence becomes present according to the place where one is to be born, there is no coming and going; what use is intermediate existence? Answer: They previously created the karma that induces intermediate existence; although there is no coming and going, they still receive intermediate existence, because that which is drawn by the force of karma must inevitably arise." Another explanation: For the four modes of birth in the desire and form [realms], intermediate existence is required as the expedient means of birth, taking rebirth in accordance with defilement.