俱舍論疏 1.26

1.26

論「謂滅諸境一切品冥」，次依頌別釋。文中有三：一釋一切種諸四字、二釋冥字、三釋滅字。此文初也。「謂滅諸境」，釋頌諸字。由染無知，於五門境迷自、共相，境非一故，故言諸也。染心不緣二無為故，不云一切。非緣諸法味、勢、熟等，品類別故，不云種也。「一切品冥」者，不染無知也。此釋一切種三字也。種是種類，是品異名，故以品名釋於種也。不染無知，緣一切法品類皆盡，故言一切。於一一境，味、熟、勢用品類眾多，不能了故，不得直言諸境別也。雖言諸、一切品別，皆就所迷，非是自體。雖一切品容說自體，然不及說，就其所迷所迷品類相易顯故。有人多解，未為得意，恐繁不述，對讀自知。二滅名同，其義各別。染污無知雖通二滅，然此中論得擇滅也。不染無知雖通二滅，然此中論得非擇滅。此之二滅，若智、斷德，分各為一德；若自、他利德，合為自利，若就心以明，即恩居先，為利他故方求佛果滅二冥也；若就成以明次，則先自利，後方能化他。此中論意就成以明。先標自利智斷二德。頌與長行先後異者，智德不共是有為，斷德無為共，互有勝劣非定前後，遂其文便故不同也。

The treatise says: 'It means eliminating all varieties of darkness regarding all objects.' This is next the explanation according to the verse. In this text there are three parts: first, explaining the four characters 'all kinds' and 'all'; second, explaining the character 'darkness'; third, explaining the character 'extinction'. This passage is the first. 'It means eliminating all objects' explains the character 'all' in the verse. Because of defiled ignorance, one is deluded about the specific and common characteristics of the objects of the five sense faculties; since the objects are not singular, it says 'all'. Because a defiled mind does not take the two unconditioned phenomena as objects, it does not say 'all [phenomena]'. Because it does not take as objects the taste, potency, maturation, and so on of all phenomena according to their different varieties, it does not say 'kinds'. 'All varieties of darkness' refers to non-defiled ignorance. This explains the three characters 'all kinds'. 'Kind' means variety, which is an alternative term for variety; hence it explains 'kind' with the term 'variety'. Because non-defiled ignorance takes as objects all varieties of all phenomena exhaustively, it says 'all'. Regarding each single object, its varieties of taste, maturation, potency, and utility are numerous; because one cannot comprehend them, one cannot simply speak of distinctions among objects. Although it speaks of distinctions among 'all' and 'all varieties', both refer to that about which one is deluded, not the intrinsic nature itself. Although 'all varieties' could conceivably describe the intrinsic nature, it does not reach that; it is because the varieties of what is deluded are easily manifested. Some people have given many explanations without grasping the meaning; fearing verbosity, I will not recite them; reading them side by side, one will naturally know. The two extinctions share the same name, but their meanings are distinct. Although defiled ignorance pertains to both extinctions, in this treatise it obtains analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Although non-defiled ignorance pertains to both extinctions, in this treatise it obtains non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). As for these two cessations: if divided according to the virtues of wisdom and abandonment, each constitutes one virtue; if divided according to the virtues of self-benefit and benefiting others, they combine into self-benefit. If explained in terms of the mind, benevolence comes first: in order to benefit others, one seeks the fruit of Buddhahood and extinguishes the two darknesses; if explained in terms of the order of accomplishment, first comes self-benefit, and only afterward can one transform others. The intent of this treatise is to explain in terms of accomplishment. First it identifies the two virtues of self-benefit: wisdom and abandonment. The reason the verse and the prose commentary differ in sequence is that the virtue of wisdom is uncommon and conditioned, while the virtue of abandonment is unconditioned and common; each has superior and inferior aspects with no fixed precedence, so they differ according to textual convenience.