俱舍論疏 10.152

10.152

論「又即喜等至謂諸善受」，重引經證。言「喜等」者，等取憂、捨。此三若染污者，緣色等六成十八耽嗜。此三若善，緣色等六為十八出離。合為三十六也。此是大師所說，非餘能說，故言大師句也。善受既非耽嗜，明非與意相牽數行境也。《婆娑》四十六明六恒住，一百二十九、一百九十明耽嗜受。《正理》救云「如何定知於諸境界或愛或憎或不擇捨方是近行？非如先說諸離欲者或阿羅漢，於有漏事雖全分斷而有有漏喜等現行不名近行，此有何理？又以何緣唯六恒住遠分所治貪等相應雜染喜等方名近行，非餘有漏善喜等受？又彼自說差別言故，非染近行定有極成。謂彼自言但為遮止雜染近行故作是說，即以許有非染近行非六恒住正所遮遣故。《毘婆沙》所說近行非與正理契經相違。又諸有漏皆名雜染，既許雜染皆名近行。與此宗義有何相違？」《婆沙》一百三十九云「若生初定成就欲界一法捨意近行，即通果俱，總緣色等為境故。有說成就三，謂色、聲、法捨意近行。此心若緣所起身表、即有緣色捨意近行。此心若緣所起語表、即有緣聲捨意近行。此心若緣所變化事、以總緣故、即有緣法捨意近行。有說：成就六捨意近行，即通果心俱，此心容有總別緣故。」今詳三解據義各別，不相違也。第一師據化事心唯法捨近行，此心不唯緣一境故。第二師說據化事心及發身、語業心，唯緣色、聲故。第三師說通六近行，通取化事、發業及餘通果心，亦容別緣六境界故。有人云：初師為正，初師意發業心亦兼緣能造觸故者。非也。若能造觸亦心緣，起善、惡二業，例亦應然，應同所造通其善、惡。

The Śāstra says: "Furthermore, joy and so forth ... refers to wholesome feelings." This cites the scripture again as proof. The phrase "joy and so forth" includes grief and equanimity by "and so forth." If these three are defiled, conditioned by the six [objects] of visible form and so forth, they constitute eighteen [mental explorations] of domesticity. If these three are wholesome, conditioned by the six [objects] of visible form and so forth, they constitute eighteen [mental explorations] of renunciation. Combined, they make thirty-six. These were spoken by the Great Teacher and could not be spoken by others; hence they are called the phrases of the Great Teacher. Since wholesome feelings are not domesticity, it is clear that they are not repeatedly engaged with objects while pulling along the mind. Fascicle 46 of the Vibhāṣā explains the six constant dwellings; fascicles 129 and 190 explain the feelings of domesticity. The Nyāyānusāra rescues [this position], saying: "How is it definitively known that only loving, hating, or choosing neither indifferently with respect to objects constitutes a mental exploration? Why should it not be like the previous statement, that in those free from passion or in arhats, although conditioned things with out-flows are entirely abandoned, active occurrences of joy and so forth with out-flows are not called mental explorations—what reason is there for this? Furthermore, by what cause are only the defiled joy and so forth associated with greed and so forth, which are counteracted distantly by the six constant dwellings, called mental explorations, while other wholesome feelings of joy and so forth with out-flows are not? Moreover, because of the differentiating words stated by themselves, non-defiled mental explorations are definitely not firmly established. That is, they themselves say that this was spoken only to prevent defiled mental explorations; thus, by allowing that non-defiled mental explorations exist, they are not what is directly rejected by the six constant dwellings. The mental explorations spoken of in the Vibhāṣā do not contradict the correct reasoning of the sūtras. Furthermore, all [dharmas] with out-flows are called defiled; since it is accepted that all defilements are called mental explorations, how does this contradict the tenets of this school?" Fascicle 139 of the Vibhāṣā says: "If one is born into the first dhyāna, one accomplishes one mental exploration of equanimity with respect to mental phenomena of the desire realm; this is concurrent with the fruit of supernormal power, because it takes visible form and so forth collectively as its object. Some say that one accomplishes three: namely, mental explorations of equanimity with respect to visible form, sound, and mental phenomena. If this mind takes the bodily informative [action] produced as its object, there is a mental exploration of equanimity taking visible form as its object. If this mind takes the vocal informative [action] produced as its object, there is a mental exploration of equanimity taking sound as its object. If this mind takes produced magical creations as its object, because it takes them collectively, there is a mental exploration of equanimity taking mental phenomena as its object. Some say that one accomplishes six mental explorations of equanimity, which are concurrent with the mind of the fruit of supernormal power, because this mind can take [objects] both collectively and individually." Now, examining these three explanations, their rationales are distinct and not mutually contradictory. The first master bases it on the mind that creates magical transformations being exclusively a mental exploration of equanimity with respect to mental phenomena, because this mind does not take only one object. The second master speaks on the basis of the mind creating magical transformations and the minds initiating bodily and vocal action, which take only visible form and sound as their objects. The third master speaks of being open to six mental explorations, comprehensively including magical creations, initiating actions, and other minds of the fruit of supernormal power, since they can also individually take the six sensory spheres as objects. Some say: the first master is correct, because the first master's intention is that the mind initiating action also concurrently takes the tangible elements capable of creating it as its object. This is incorrect. If the tangibles capable of creating were also taken as objects by the mind when initiating wholesome or unwholesome karma, the same analogy should apply to them, and they should, like what is created, share in being wholesome or unwholesome.