俱舍論疏 10.39

10.39

論「豈不可說至故應且止」，論主難也。貪、見、我慢以經別說，不可說為貪、見、我慢，餘慢、疑、恚經既不說，寧知不是餘慢等也？等謂等取疑、恚二惑。此是異師意也。論主敘而為難。所以得知？正《理論》云「有說餘慢是類性攝。彼說不然，諸言流至我慢中故。我慢執言攝諸慢盡（此意諸言流至我慢，即言諸慢。既言諸慢，故知攝盡），應如愛等各盡無遺（諸言流至愛等中故）。然於此中勝者別說，我、我所執是諸見根，故於見中別顯二種（此諸言流至見中，理合攝一切見盡。以我、我所見，諸見根本，勝故重說之）。為攝疑、恚說隨眠言（疑、恚雖不名顯隨眠中攝），勝煩惱中無明未說，為別顯彼說類性言。遍與惑俱（隨種種惑相不同故名之為類），遍往諸趣故名類性。類是行義，是類之體得類性名。」今評《正理》此釋，自是一家之別，無決定證。如說隨眠，如何即知定攝疑、恚，不攝無明？言諸遍流，即謂我慢攝餘六慢。若謂我慢攝餘慢者，應但言慢，經不應以我慢標別，如說其愛。若謂以我慢勝利標別我名，故知說我不攝餘慢。如我、我所見，此見言下不攝四見。進退推尋，不能通釋論主之難。

The treatise says: "Could it not be stated [...] therefore we should stop for now." The author of the treatise raises an objection. Greed, views, and the conceit "I am", having been stated separately by the sūtra, cannot be stated to be greed, views, or the conceit "I am"; but since the other conceits, doubt, and aversion are not stated by the sūtra, how is it known that it is not the other conceits and so forth? "And so forth" means including the two afflictions of doubt and aversion. This is the intention of a different master. The author of the treatise relates it to raise an objection. How is this known? The Nyāyānusāra states: "Some say that the other conceits are subsumed under the category. What they say is incorrect, because the word 'all' flows through to the conceit 'I am'. The statement 'the grasping of the conceit "I am"' subsumes all conceits completely (the meaning is that because the word 'all' flows through to the conceit 'I am', it means 'all conceits'; since it says 'all conceits', we know it subsumes them completely), just as it should be with longing and so forth, each being completely exhaustive (because the word 'all' flows through into longing and so forth). However, here the predominant ones are stated separately: the graspings of 'I' and 'mine' are the root of all views, so within views two kinds are separately indicated (here the word 'all' flows into views, and in principle it should subsume all views completely; but because the views of 'I' and 'mine' are the root of all views and are predominant, they are restated). The word 'latent defilements' is stated in order to subsume doubt and aversion (although doubt and aversion are not explicitly named, they are subsumed under latent defilements); among the predominant defilements, ignorance has not yet been stated, so the word 'category' is stated in order to separately indicate it. Universally co-arising with afflictions (it is called 'category' because it accords with the differing characteristics of the various afflictions), and universally proceeding to the various destinies, it is therefore called 'category'. 'Category' has the meaning of 'proceeding'; being the substantial entity of the categories, it receives the name 'category-nature'." Now, evaluating this explanation of the Nyāyānusāra, it is merely the particular view of one school and lacks definitive proof. Just as it speaks of "latent defilements", how does one know definitively that it subsumes doubt and aversion, and does not subsume ignorance? When it says that "all" flows through, it asserts that the conceit "I am" subsumes the remaining six conceits. If one asserts that the conceit "I am" subsumes the other conceits, it should have simply said "conceit"; the sūtra should not have specifically designated it as "the conceit 'I am'", just as it spoke of "longing". If one asserts that because the conceit "I am" is superior it is specifically designated with the name "I", then one knows that stating "I" does not subsume the other conceits; just as with the views of "I" and "mine", under this word "view" the [other] four views are not subsumed. Searching forward and backward, it cannot resolve the objection of the author of the treatise.