俱舍論疏 13.223

13.223

論「唯牟尼尊至無萎歇故」，明佛不同。婆沙一師二轉同性心。《婆沙》一百一十七云「此中若善心作轉，即善心作隨轉。若染污心作轉，即染污心作隨轉。若威儀路、工巧處等亦爾。問：若威儀心作轉，即彼心作隨轉者，如有行時遇見佛像等起善眼識，或見婬女等起染眼識，如是豈非善、染隨轉起彼業耶？尊者世友說曰：此由覺惠速疾迴轉起增上慢。謂於行位起此眼識，而實行時則善、染心不現在前。若善、染心現在前時，即止不行。此善、染心但如伴者，不名等起。復有說者，威儀許容善、染、無記為等起，餘如前。即以工巧畫佛像起善，畫女人起染為難。世友通如威儀。復有說者，工巧心發起業時善、染等起，乃至工巧處心轉時，其隨轉容有三種。」問：異熟生心何故不能作二等起發身、語業耶？答：強盛心發身、語業。異熟生心其性羸劣，故不能發。復有說者，若身、語業異熟生心為二等起而發起者，此身、語業當言是何？為威儀路？為工巧處？為異熟生？若威儀路、或工巧處，異熟生心云何能發？若異熟生，此身、語業應是異熟。然身、語業定非異熟，加行起故。亦不可說為善、染性，異熟生心所等起故。由此異熟生心，不能發身、語業。今婆沙有三師：一師自類為剎那等起；二師威儀剎那等起通三，餘同前；第三師威儀、工巧剎那等起通三，餘同前。然未見善、染剎那等起通三文，及異熟生心為剎那等起文，此二義皆《婆沙》無文。雖佛無記心後通善，剎那等起義亦不同。然《婆沙》無評文。諸小論意不同，取義各別。《雜心》云「若善轉即善隨轉，不善、無記亦爾。」取初師義。此論於轉善等隨轉通三，非婆沙師義。《正理論》云「異熟生心亦為隨轉」，亦非婆沙師義。太法師云：「《俱舍》是《婆沙》中一師義者，非也。」

The treatise says: "Only for the Sage ... up to ... because there is no decline or exhaustion." This clarifies the uniqueness of the Buddha. One master of the *Vibhāṣā* maintains that the two motivating minds share the same nature. Fascicle 117 of the *Vibhāṣā* states: "Herein, if a wholesome mind acts as the initiator, then a wholesome mind acts as the concomitant. If an afflicted mind acts as the initiator, an afflicted mind acts as the concomitant. This is also the case for deportment, craft, and so forth. Question: If a mind of deportment acts as initiator and that same mind acts as concomitant, then when walking, if one encounters a Buddha statue and generates a wholesome eye-consciousness, or sees an alluring woman and generates an afflicted eye-consciousness, does not that wholesome or afflicted concomitant mind initiate that action? Venerable Vasumitra says: 'This is due to the rapid turning of discriminative intellect, which gives rise to excessive presumption. It is claimed that during walking this eye-consciousness arises, but when one is actually walking, the wholesome or afflicted mind does not manifest. When the wholesome or afflicted mind manifests, one halts and does not walk. Such wholesome or afflicted minds are merely like companions; they are not called motivating causes.' Another master says: In deportment, wholesome, afflicted, and indeterminate minds are permitted as motivating factors, the rest being as before. The objection is raised regarding crafts: painting a Buddha statue gives rise to wholesome mind, and painting a woman gives rise to afflicted mind. Vasumitra resolves this in the same way as deportment. Still another master says: When a mind of crafts initiates action, it has wholesome and afflicted motivating factors, and even when a mind of crafts is operating, its concomitant mind can be of three types." Question: Why cannot a maturation-born mind act as the two motivating factors to launch bodily and vocal actions? Answer: A strong and vigorous mind launches bodily and vocal actions. The nature of a maturation-born mind is feeble, so it cannot launch them. Another master says: If bodily and vocal actions were launched with a maturation-born mind acting as the two motivating factors, what should these bodily and vocal actions be called? Would they be deportment? Crafts? Or maturation-born? If deportment or crafts, how could a maturation-born mind launch them? If maturation-born, these bodily and vocal actions would have to be maturation retributions. But bodily and vocal actions are definitely not maturation retributions, because they arise through preparatory effort. Nor can they be said to be wholesome or afflicted, because they would be motivated by a maturation-born mind. For this reason, a maturation-born mind cannot launch bodily and vocal actions. Now in the *Vibhāṣā* there are three masters: The first master holds that they are of the same category as the simultaneous motivating cause; the second master holds that for deportment, the simultaneous motivating cause extends to all three [natures], the rest being as before; the third master holds that for deportment and crafts, the simultaneous motivating causes extend to all three, the rest being as before. Yet no passage has been found stating that the simultaneous motivating cause for wholesome and afflicted states extends to all three, nor is there any text stating that a maturation-born mind is a simultaneous motivating cause; neither of these two views has any textual basis in the *Vibhāṣā*. Although after an indeterminate mind the Buddha can extend into wholesome states, the meaning of simultaneous motivating cause is also different. However, the *Vibhāṣā* has no definitive assessment. The various minor treatises have differing intentions and adopt distinct interpretations. The *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* says: "If the initiator is wholesome, the concomitant is wholesome; the same applies to unwholesome and indeterminate." This adopts the view of the first master. This treatise holds that when the initiator is wholesome and so forth, the concomitant can be any of the three, which is not the view of the *Vibhāṣā* masters. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "The maturation-born mind also acts as a concomitant," which is also not the view of the *Vibhāṣā* masters. Master Tai said: "The *Kośa* follows the view of one master in the *Vibhāṣā*"—this is incorrect.