俱舍論疏 1.316

1.316

論「彼於處界例應成失」，論主破第三釋。若蘊息得無為，無為非蘊攝。處、界息故得無為，無為非處、界，故言彼於處、界例應成失。《正理》救云「經主難言：彼於處、界例應成失，謂處、界息，應非處、界。便違所宗。全於蘊門眾生計我，入無餘位諸蘊頓息；處、界不然，非全生故。唯取蘊起假說為生，若諸蘊息亦立為蘊，般涅槃已餘蘊應存。眾生畏蘊有多過患，應於涅槃無安穩想，非處、界中全有多過，故無餘位處、界猶隨。故蘊不應例彼成失。又此息言，意非顯斷，空、非擇滅體非斷故。此言意顯：若於是處蘊相都無名為蘊息。三無為上聚義都無，可名蘊息。非生門、族義於彼亦無，故不應例。」此釋與頌義善相符。有人作俱舍釋破云：若言無為無聚義者，與我此論初解何殊？然檢三解，竝是婆沙師釋也。檢《正理抄》云「經主謬取古師意，謂息為斷。若以斷義名息，即有空、非擇滅難。彼非斷故，亦名蘊息故。若以無聚義故名息，即不合舉處、界為例，處、界義不息故。」今詳不爾。若唯斷義名息，唯在擇滅，唯取蘊有息；餘蘊無息，無擇滅故。亦不是都無蘊相名之為息，由第三解與第一釋不合同故。今詳古師言息，息滅所顯故名為息。一切有漏法有二種息，謂斷及非擇滅。色滅兼顯虛空。有為無漏唯有非擇滅息。若以蘊息故顯無為，則蘊不攝者，十七界全、一界少分息，顯三無為。亦應無為非界攝，彼非斷故，亦名蘊息故。若以無聚義故名息，即不合舉處、界為例，處、界義不息故。應以空、非擇滅為難，不應處、界例蘊。若謂《正理》同於初解，論主此破即違初解，應更思之。

[On the quote from the] *Śāstra*: “That should analogously incur a fault with regard to āyatanas and dhātus,” the author of the *Śāstra* refutes the third explanation. If unconditioned dharmas are obtained when skandhas cease, and so unconditioned dharmas are not subsumed under skandhas, then since unconditioned dharmas are obtained when āyatanas and dhātus cease, unconditioned dharmas should not be āyatanas or dhātus; hence it says: ‘That should analogously incur a fault with regard to āyatanas and dhātus.’ The *Nyāyānusāra* rescues [the position], saying: “The author of the sūtra objects: ‘That should analogously incur a fault with regard to āyatanas and dhātus,’ meaning that when āyatanas and dhātus cease, they should not be āyatanas and dhātus. This contradicts his own doctrine. In the gateway of skandhas, sentient beings exclusively reckon a self; upon entering the stage without remainder, all skandhas suddenly cease; with āyatanas and dhātus it is not so, because they are not entirely [where self-grasping] arises. It is only the arising of the upādāna-skandhas that is nominally called birth; if the cessation of skandhas were also established as a skandha, then after parinirvāṇa the remaining skandhas should persist. Sentient beings dread skandhas as having many faults, so they would have no thought of security toward nirvāṇa; whereas among āyatanas and dhātus, they do not entirely have many faults, so in the stage without remainder āyatanas and dhātus still follow. Therefore skandhas should not analogously incur a fault with them. Furthermore, this word ‘cessation’ is not intended to show severing, because space and apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha are not severing by nature. This word is intended to show: if a skandha characteristic is completely absent in a certain locus, it is termed the cessation of skandha. Upon the three unconditioned dharmas, the meaning of collection is completely absent, so it can be called the cessation of skandha. It is not that the meanings of door of arising or lineage are absent in them, so one should not make an analogy.” This explanation accords well with the verse’s meaning. Someone writing a commentary on the *Kośa* refuted this, saying: ‘If one says that unconditioned dharmas lack the meaning of collection, how does that differ from the first explanation in this śāstra of ours?’ However, upon examining the three explanations, they are all explanations by masters of the *Vibhāṣā*. Examining the *Notes on the Nyāyānusāra*, it says: ‘The author of the sūtra mistakenly took the ancient master’s meaning, regarding cessation as severing. If cessation is named in the sense of severing, then there is the objection concerning space and apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Since they are not severed, they are also called the cessation of skandhas. If cessation is named on account of lacking the meaning of collection, then it is inappropriate to cite āyatanas and dhātus as an analogy, because the meaning of āyatanas and dhātus does not cease.’ Now considering this, it is not so. If cessation is strictly named in the sense of severing, it would reside solely in pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, and only the upādāna-skandhas would have cessation; the remaining skandhas would not have cessation, because there is no pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Nor is it that the complete absence of skandha characteristics is termed cessation, since the third explanation cannot be identical with the first. Now considering what the ancient masters called cessation, it is named cessation because it is revealed by cessation. All defiled dharmas have two kinds of cessation: severing and apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. The cessation of form additionally reveals space. Conditioned anāsrava dharmas have only the cessation of apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. If unconditioned dharmas are revealed by the cessation of skandhas and therefore are not subsumed under skandhas, then the cessation of seventeen whole dhātus and a small portion of one dhātu reveals the three unconditioned dharmas; unconditioned dharmas should also not be subsumed under dhātus, because they are not severed and yet are also called the cessation of skandhas. If it is named cessation because of lacking the meaning of collection, then it is inappropriate to cite āyatanas and dhātus as an analogy, because the meaning of āyatanas and dhātus does not cease. One should make an objection based on space and apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, and should not use āyatanas and dhātus as an analogy for skandhas. If one claims that the *Nyāyānusāra* is identical with the first explanation, then the author of the *Śāstra*’s refutation would contradict the first explanation; this should be further reflected upon.”