俱舍論疏 13.196

13.196

論「若爾定心至應設劬勞」，論主難也。應設劬勞，通斯切難。《正理論》云「又如眼等不待心生，其性便無善等差別。如是大種不待心生，故理亦無善等差別。若爾，諸得及生等相，應無等起善等差別，以非本心所欲起故，無心位中亦現起故。此難非理，由法勢力安立善等差別成故。謂得、四相依法而立，非如大種無待自成。有為法中無有一法不待心力成善不善，是故諸得及生等相，如所屬法，要由心力成善等性。其理善成。生已離心雖相續轉，亦無有過，即是前心勢力所引令其轉故。隨定、無表定等力生，理亦應成等起善性。天眼、天耳應善性攝，以是善心所等起故。此難非理，以彼二通解脫道心，是無記故，彼二與道俱時生故。通斯似難，何費劬勞。」有人云：俱舍師破云，若天眼、耳由與無記道俱生故是無記者，既由道力，應名等起。若言非由彼道力故成無記者，道俱生言何成解釋？真難未通，劬勞還費。今詳此破似非，本文多救之中唯破一故，於此一中又非切當。論主以道是善眼根無記故以為難端。救云：道是無記，與眼根性同。難自不成，反難等起，何關此義？

The treatise says: "If so, the mind in absorption [...] should exert great effort." This is an objection by the author of the treatise: one should exert great effort to resolve this pressing objection. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Furthermore, just as the eye and other faculties do not depend on the mind to arise, their nature is without distinction as wholesome and so forth. In the same way, the great elements do not depend on the mind to arise, and so logically they also lack distinctions as wholesome and so forth. If so, possessions and the characteristics of arising and so forth should lack the distinction of originated wholesomeness and so forth, because they are not what the fundamental mind desired to produce, and because they also appear in a mindless state. This objection is unreasonable, because the distinction into wholesome and so forth is established through the power of the dharmas. That is, possessions and the four characteristics are established based upon dharmas; they are not like the great elements, which are established independently on their own. Among conditioned dharmas, there is not a single dharma that does not depend on the power of the mind to become wholesome or unwholesome; therefore possessions and the characteristics of arising and so forth, like the dharmas to which they belong, must depend on the power of the mind to become wholesome in nature and so forth. This principle is well established. Although they continue to operate in succession after arising separated from the mind, there is still no fault, because it is the power of the prior mind that induces them to operate. Following the power of absorption and uninformative karma, they should logically also become wholesome by origination. The divine eye and divine ear should be subsumed under the wholesome nature, because they are originated by a wholesome mind. This objection is unreasonable, because the mind of the path of liberation for those two supernormal faculties is indeterminate, and those two arise simultaneously with that path. In resolving such a specious objection, why expend great effort?" Someone said: A master of the Kośa refuted this, saying: "If the divine eye and ear are indeterminate because they arise simultaneously with the indeterminate path, then since they are due to the power of the path, they should be called originated. If you say they do not become indeterminate due to the power of that path, how does saying 'arising simultaneously with the path' constitute an explanation? The genuine difficulty has not been resolved; the effort was spent in vain." Now, examining this refutation, it seems incorrect. Among the many defenses in the root text, he only refutes one, and regarding this one, it is also not pertinent. The author of the treatise took the fact that the path is wholesome while the eye faculty is indeterminate as the premise of his objection. The defense said: "The path is indeterminate, having the same nature as the eye faculty." The objection itself collapses; turning around to object regarding origination—how is that relevant to this meaning?