俱舍論疏 1.131

1.131

論「亦名見處至隨增眠故」，釋見處也。謂見住有漏蘊中隨順增長，名隨增也。行相微細，故名眠也。《正理》釋云「亦名見處。薩迦耶等五見住中，隨增眠故。豈不有漏一切煩惱皆隨增耶？豈不諸見漏取諍攝，前已說耶者。此問意云：五見即是煩惱所收。前釋有漏一切煩惱皆隨增者已說，一切煩惱諍增者已說，諸見因何別說有漏以為見處？以是諸見隨增眠故。雖有此理，而彼諸見於有漏法一切種、一切時，相無差別、堅執不動，隨增眠故體用增盛。為顯有漏是能生長此諸見處，故應重說」者，此釋重說見處所以也。貪等癡疑則不如是者，無上一切種等四義，云不如是。以彼貪等有一切種。無一切時者，釋貪等有一切種異纏垢等，無一切時與見不同。一切種者，元瑜師云：「遍緣五門，或遍緣六境，不云有所簡也。」今釋：一切種者，謂貪、瞋、慢有隨眠、纏、垢一切種過，上必兼下故。由是別相隨眠，雖一切種，不能於一切時起，名非一切時。非無差別者，雖獨頭無明及共相煩惱相應無明是一切時，而有別相煩惱相應無明非一切時，及與忿等相應無明，非一切種及一切時故，相有差別。疑雖無差別而不堅執者，疑是隨眠性非別相惑，不與別相煩惱及非一切種染法相應。有一切種及一切時相無差別，而疑有苦無苦等，不堅執故，非是堅執。不同於見，是隨眠故，有一切種。共相惑故，有一切時。不與自相煩惱及非隨眠染相應故，相無差別。此我斷常，撥無等見。不猶豫故，非不堅執。由此過重，於有漏法別說見處令生厭離。

The treatise says: "They are also called bases of views, because [views] increase and slumber in them," which explains "bases of views." This means that views abide within the contaminated aggregates, conforming with them and increasing, which is called "increasing" (anuśayana / anusahavṛddhi); their activity is subtle, and so it is called "slumbering" (śayana). The Nyāyānusāra explains: "They are also called bases of views (dṛṣṭisthāna), because the five views, such as the view of an individualized body (satkāyadṛṣṭi), abide within them, increasing and slumbering. But do not all defilements (kleśa) that are contaminated increase in them? And have not all views already been spoken of earlier as subsumed under defilements, grasping, and dispute? The meaning of this question is: the five views are indeed included under defilements. It has already been stated earlier that in explaining contaminated [aggregates], all defilements increase in them, and it has already been stated that all defilements increase dispute; why then are the contaminated singled out in relation to views and called bases of views? It is because these views increase and slumber in them. Although this principle holds, these views are of all kinds and present at all times with respect to contaminated phenomena; their marks are undifferentiated, and they grasp firmly and immovably; because they increase and slumber, their substance and function flourish exceedingly. In order to show that the contaminated are the bases that generate and nourish these views, they ought to be stated again." This explains the reason for stating "bases of views" again. Regarding "Greed and so forth, ignorance, and doubt are not like this": lacking the above four meanings, such as "of all kinds," it is said they are "not like this." Because that greed and so forth are of all kinds, but not of all times: this explains that greed and so forth are of all kinds, differing from envelopments (paryavasthāna) and stains (mala), but are not present at all times, differing from views. As for "of all kinds," Master Yuanyu said: "Pervasively taking the five gates as object, or pervasively taking the six sense objects as object, without saying that there is any restriction." Now it is explained: "of all kinds" means that greed, anger, and conceit have the faults of all kinds—dormant tendencies (anuśaya), envelopments, and stains—because the higher must necessarily encompass the lower. Because these are dormant tendencies with particular marks (bheda-lakṣaṇa), although they are of all kinds, they cannot arise at all times, and are thus called "not of all times." As for "not undifferentiated": although solitary ignorance (āveṇikī avidyā) and ignorance associated with defilements of universal mark (sāmānya-lakṣaṇa) are present at all times, there is ignorance associated with defilements of particular mark that is not present at all times, and ignorance associated with wrath (krodha) and so forth is neither of all kinds nor of all times; therefore their marks have differentiation. As for "doubt, although undifferentiated, does not grasp firmly": doubt is in its nature a dormant tendency and not an affliction of particular mark; it is not associated with afflictions of particular mark or with defiled phenomena not of all kinds. It is of all kinds and present at all times, with marks undifferentiated; yet doubting whether there is suffering or no suffering, it does not grasp firmly, and hence is not a firm grasping. It is unlike views, which, because they are dormant tendencies, are of all kinds; because they are afflictions of universal mark, they are present at all times; because they are not associated with afflictions of individual mark or with defilements that are not dormant tendencies, their marks are undifferentiated. These views—of a self, of annihilationism and eternalism, of repudiation, and so forth—do not waver, and hence are not unfirm in grasping. Due to this excessive fault, among contaminated phenomena they are separately spoken of as bases of views, so as to induce aversion.