俱舍論疏 13.183

13.183

論「等起善者至所引生乳」，此釋第四等起善也。謂身、語表及無表業四相得等。由二善所等起，故成善性也。准《婆沙》一百四十四，三性分別二十二根。有一師說：有四種善及不善等。與此論同。《正理》三十六，亦與此論同。故知四種善與不善，是有部宗舊所稟義，非是世親菩薩新立。有人引安惠《俱舍》釋云：據實而言皆是自性善。然世親阿闍梨立四種者，隨義勝劣建立異名。善中最勝者名勝義善，次強者立自性善，次劣者立相應善，最劣者名等起善者。謬也。又此釋若唯以勝故名自性者，與名、義不相符會。不待他成善等故名為自性，待他成故名相應，如藥及雜藥水故。問：若爾，何故《婆沙》第二云「今應問彼：若唯五根是自性善，所餘善法自性是何？若謂彼是不善、無記，雜五根故亦名善者，如是五根與彼相雜，何故不名不善、無記？然信等五與所餘法，同一所依、同一行相、同一所緣，一起、一住、一滅、一果，同一等流、同一異熟，而言五根是自性善，餘相雜故假立善名，但順妄情不應正理。勿有此過，故應說言世第一法根非根性。」准此，《婆沙》不立相應、等起善等，因何言謬？答：《婆沙》第二與此意別。彼異師說：五根是世第一法，自性是善故。餘非世第一法，以自性非善，與善相應假立善名，由此《婆沙》云「但順妄情」。今此四善即不如是，若相應善、若等起善，皆體性是善，非假名善。其自性善不待他成善，相應、等起待他成善性故，不名自性善。問：若爾，未相應時先是何性？答：有體已來常與自性善俱恒名善性，善由他立故非自性。以無貪之義性是善故，非相應義，性善也。

The treatise says: "'Originated [wholesomeness]' refers to [...] milk that has been drawn [by eating good herbs]." This explains the fourth, originated wholesomeness. It refers to the informative and uninformative karma of body and speech, the four characteristics [of conditioned phenomena], possession, and so forth. Because they are originated equally by the two [kinds of] wholesomeness, they become wholesome in nature. According to the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 144, in analyzing the twenty-two faculties across the three natures, one master states that there are four kinds of wholesomeness, unwholesomeness, and so on. This agrees with this treatise. Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 36, also agrees with this treatise. Thus we know that the four kinds of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness are doctrines traditionally received by the Vaibhāṣika school, and were not newly established by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. Someone cited Sthiramati's commentary on the Abhidharmakośa, which says: "Strictly speaking, all are wholesome by inherent nature. However, the reason the master Vasubandhu established four kinds is to establish distinct names in accordance with the superiority or inferiority of their meaning. The most superior among the wholesome is called 'ultimately wholesome'; the next strongest is established as 'wholesome by inherent nature'; the next inferior is established as 'wholesome by association'; and the most inferior is called 'wholesome by origination.'" This is erroneous. Furthermore, if this explanation holds that it is called "inherent nature" solely because of superiority, that does not tally with the name and its meaning. It is called "inherent nature" because it does not depend on anything else to become wholesome and so forth; it is called "associated" because it depends on others to become so—just like medicine and water mixed with medicine. Question: If so, why does the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 2, say: "Now they should be asked: 'If only the five faculties are wholesome by inherent nature, what is the inherent nature of the remaining wholesome dharmas? If it is said that they are unwholesome or indeterminate, but because they are mixed with the five faculties they are also called wholesome, then since the five faculties are mixed with them, why are they not called unwholesome or indeterminate? Furthermore, the five beginning with faith and the remaining dharmas share the same basis, the same mental image, the same object of support, a single arising, a single abiding, a single cessation, a single fruit, the same outflow (niṣyanda), and the same retribution (vipāka). Yet to say that the five faculties are wholesome by inherent nature while the rest are metaphorically designated as wholesome merely because they are mixed together only accords with deluded fancy and does not conform to correct reason. Lest this error occur, one should say that the supreme mundane phenomena possess both faculty and non-faculty natures.'" Following this, the Vibhāṣā does not establish wholesomeness by association, wholesomeness by origination, and so forth; why then is it called erroneous? Answer: The intent of the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 2, is different from this. That other master asserted that the five faculties constitute the supreme mundane phenomena because their inherent nature is wholesome. The others are not the supreme mundane phenomena because their inherent nature is not wholesome, but being associated with the wholesome, they are metaphorically designated as wholesome; hence the Vibhāṣā says it "only accords with deluded fancy." Now, these four [kinds of] wholesomeness are not like that: whether wholesome by association or wholesome by origination, both are wholesome in their essential nature; they are not mere metaphorical designations of wholesomeness. That which is wholesome by inherent nature does not depend on others to become wholesome; because [what is wholesome by] association and origination depends on others to become wholesome in nature, it is not called wholesome by inherent nature. Question: If so, before it is associated, what nature did it have previously? Answer: Since having entity, it has always been accompanied by what is wholesome by inherent nature and is perpetually called wholesome in nature. Because its wholesomeness is established through another, it is not inherent nature. It is because the meaning of non-greed is wholesome in its nature, not because of the meaning of association, that it is wholesome in nature.