俱舍論疏 13.231

13.231

論「若表不由至無記表業」，論主與《婆沙》通經出過，正《婆沙》文。《婆沙》百一十七「問：若見所斷心不能作剎那等起發身、語業者，契經所說當云何通，如契經說：諸邪見人所有身、語、意業，若思、若求、若所造作，一切皆得不可愛、不可樂、非悅意果。所以者何？此見暴惡，所謂邪見。答：依因等起作如是說，非依剎那等起，是故無過。」《正理論》云「又作是說：若表不由隨轉心力成善等者，則不應言彼經但據前因等起、非據剎那，故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。彼謂此說表成善等性決定但由剎那等起力，故見所斷惑雖為因等起，而欲界定無有覆無記業。此由經主不達我宗所有言義故作是說。此說意言：若見所斷惑為剎那等起與業俱行，是則不應隔修所斷能起表業因等起心，則欲界中何緣無有有覆無記身、語表業？然見所斷惑尚不能為因，無間引生業俱行識，何能自作剎那等起？說不能作剎那等起，顯不能為近因等起。但有能作近因等起者，此必能為剎那等起故。身見、邊見雖為遠因引身、語表，而由修斷近因勢力成不善根，是故說言彼經但據前因等起、非據剎那，故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。若不爾者，則不應言彼經但據前因等起。前言為顯隔近因故，簡近因故，說前因言。故彼此中不達言義。」《婆沙論》云「復次若此眾同分心作能轉，即此眾同分心作隨轉，斯有是處。若此眾同分心作能轉，餘眾同分心作隨轉發身、語業，無有是處。復有說者，亦有是處。謂如有人發願當作五年大會，中間命終，乘斯願力生富貴家，自憶宿命，如昔所願一切皆作。如是則名此眾同分心作能轉，餘眾同分心作隨轉發身、語業。」然無評文。今釋：前師說近因等起心，後師說遠因等起心，義不相違，故無評也。

On the Śāstra's statement: "If an intimation did not [depend on]... to ...neutral intimation": The author of the Śāstra, along with the *Vibhāṣā*, resolves the scripture and points out the flaw, directly following the text of the *Vibhāṣā*. The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 117, says: "Question: If a mind abandoned by seeing cannot act as the momentary origination that gives rise to bodily and vocal karma, how is that which is stated in the sūtra to be resolved? As a sūtra says: 'Whatever bodily, vocal, and mental karma those with wrong view possess—whether their intentions, aspirations, or deeds—all yield unwelcome, unpleasant, and disagreeable fruits. Why is that? Because this view is fierce and evil, namely, wrong view.' Answer: That was stated relying on the causal origination, not relying on the momentary origination; therefore there is no flaw." The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "It is also said: 'If an intimation did not become wholesome or the like by virtue of the accompanying mind, then it should not be said that that sūtra merely relies on the prior causal origination and does not rely on the momentary [origination], so that in the desire realm there is definitely no veiled-neutral intimation.' He assumes this statement means that an intimation's determination as wholesome or the like is solely due to the power of momentary origination, and therefore although defilements abandoned by seeing act as the causal origination, in the desire realm there is definitely no veiled-neutral karma. This statement was made because the author of the scripture did not comprehend the intended meaning of our school's words. The meaning of this statement is: If defilements abandoned by seeing were to act as the momentary origination and co-occur with the karma, then they would not be separated by the mind of causal origination abandoned by cultivation that is capable of giving rise to intimation-karma; why then would there be no veiled-neutral bodily and vocal intimation-karma in the desire realm? Yet defilements abandoned by seeing cannot even serve as the cause to immediately introduce the consciousness that co-occurs with karma; how could they themselves act as the momentary origination? Stating that they cannot act as the momentary origination demonstrates that they cannot serve as the proximate causal origination. For only that which can act as the proximate causal origination can necessarily act as the momentary origination. Although the view of self-existence and extreme view serve as the remote cause to induce bodily and vocal intimation, through the power of the proximate cause abandoned by cultivation they become unwholesome roots; therefore it is said that that sūtra merely relies on the prior causal origination and does not rely on the momentary [origination], so that in the desire realm there is definitely no veiled-neutral intimation-karma. If it were not so, it should not be said that that sūtra merely relies on the prior causal origination. The word 'prior' is used to show the separation from the proximate cause, and to exclude the proximate cause, which is why 'prior cause' is said. Thus, in this matter he did not comprehend the intended meaning." The *Vibhāṣā* says: "Furthermore, it is possible that when a mind belonging to this same genus acts as the initiator, a mind belonging to this same genus also acts as the accompanying [mind]. It is impossible that when a mind belonging to this same genus acts as the initiator, a mind belonging to another genus acts as the accompanying [mind] to give rise to bodily and vocal karma. Others say: This is also possible. For instance, suppose someone makes a vow to hold a five-year grand gathering, dies in the interim, and by the power of this vow is born into an affluent and noble family; remembering his past lives on his own, he performs everything just as previously vowed. In this case, a mind belonging to this same genus acts as the initiator, and a mind belonging to another genus acts as the accompanying [mind] to give rise to bodily and vocal karma." Yet there is no concluding judgment in the text. Now it is explained: The former master speaks of the proximate causal-origination mind, and the latter master speaks of the remote causal-origination mind; their meanings do not conflict, which is why there is no concluding judgment.