俱舍論疏 1.189

1.189

「論曰至不亂有心」，此釋頌也。文中有五：一無表位、二無表相、三無表性、四無表因、五無表名。此即是釋無表位也。「亂心者謂此餘心」者，善無表，以善心為此，以不善、無記心為餘；不善無表，以不善心為此善，無記心為餘。《正理論》云「不善、無記名亂心。餘心名不亂者，就善無表說也。」「無心者謂入無想及滅盡定」者，《正理論》云「無想、滅定名無心、此能滅心故。雖更有餘無心果位、而無表色非所隨流、故無心言不攝於彼。」「等言顯示不亂有心」者，等言謂通兩處，謂亂心等及無心等。亂心等，等取不亂心。無心等，等取有心。《正理》彈云「又謂等言通無心者，此言無用，前已攝故。亂心等言已攝一切餘有心位，第二等言復何所攝？經主應思。」述曰：無心是無心位。亂心等言等不亂心。除此二外，更有何心須無心等等也？「此等，應於一處安也。經主應思，或謂後等攝不亂心，前無用者。此不應然，無容攝故，何容後等攝不亂心？遮言：理於相似處起，乘無起等，理不及餘，故非全攝。」述曰：既乘無心下起等，理不及不亂心餘，故非全攝。「或可亂心言成無用。」述曰：無心等已等一切有心，何用亂心？故言亂心是無用也。「又應簡言唯淨無表於無心位隨流，非餘。」述曰：入無心定，理合一切不善無表皆捨，不可言在無心位也。「於自釋中亦不簡別，故於此理，經主應思。」安慧救云「亂心、不亂說其散位，亂心等取不亂心，散自相似。無心、有心說其定位，無心等取有心，定自相似。故此等言通於兩處。」

The commentary states: "The treatise says:... undistracted and having mind." This explains the verse. In the text there are five parts: first, the state of the unmanifest; second, the characteristic of the unmanifest; third, the intrinsic nature of the unmanifest; fourth, the cause of the unmanifest; fifth, the name of the unmanifest. This is the explanation of the state of the unmanifest. "Distracted mind means a mind other than this": for wholesome unmanifest [form], a wholesome mind is 'this', and unwholesome and indeterminate minds are 'other'; for unwholesome unmanifest [form], an unwholesome mind is 'this', and wholesome and indeterminate minds are 'other'. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Unwholesome and indeterminate are called 'distracted minds'. Other minds are called 'undistracted'; this is spoken in reference to wholesome unmanifest [form]." "Mindless means entering the attainment of non-conception and the attainment of cessation": the Nyāyānusāra states: "Non-conception and the attainment of cessation are called 'mindless' because these can extinguish mind. Although there are other resultant states without mind, unmanifest form does not flow along with them, and therefore the expression 'mindless' does not subsume them." "The word 'and so forth' indicates undistracted and having mind": the word 'and so forth' applies to two places, namely 'distracted mind, etc.' and 'mindless, etc.' 'Distracted mind, etc.' takes undistracted mind by inclusion. 'Mindless, etc.' takes having mind by inclusion. The Nyāyānusāra criticizes: "Furthermore, to claim that the word 'and so forth' extends to 'mindless' makes this word useless, since it was already subsumed previously. The words 'distracted mind, etc.' have already subsumed all other states with mind; what then would the second 'and so forth' subsume? The author of the treatise should reflect on this." The subcommentary states: 'Mindless' is the state without mind. 'Distracted mind, etc.' includes undistracted mind. Aside from these two, what other mind is there that requires 'mindless, etc.'? "This 'and so forth' should be placed in one location. The author of the treatise should reflect on this. Or if it is claimed that the latter 'and so forth' subsumes undistracted mind, making the former useless, this should not be so, because there is no way for it to be subsumed. How could the latter 'and so forth' subsume undistracted mind? The word of exclusion logically arises in a similar place; following 'without [mind]', logically it does not reach the rest, so it is not a complete inclusion." The subcommentary states: Since 'and so forth' arises after 'mindless', logically it does not reach the remainder of undistracted mind, and thus does not completely subsume it. "Or else the expression 'distracted mind' becomes useless." The subcommentary states: If 'mindless, etc.' already includes all [states] with mind, what need is there for 'distracted mind'? Therefore it is said that 'distracted mind' is useless. "Furthermore, it should have been specified that only pure unmanifest [form] flows along in mindless states, and not others." The subcommentary states: When entering mindless absorption, by principle all unwholesome unmanifest [forms] are abandoned; it cannot be said that they exist in the mindless state. "Nor is any distinction made in his own commentary. Therefore, regarding this principle, the author of the treatise should reflect." Sthiramati defends [Vasubandhu], saying: "Distracted mind and undistracted speak of distracted states: 'distracted mind, etc.' takes undistracted mind, and distracted states are similar to each other. Mindless and having mind speak of meditative states: 'mindless, etc.' takes having mind, and meditative states are similar to each other. Therefore, this word 'and so forth' applies to both places."