俱舍論疏 13.5

13.5

「論曰至業差別起」，釋頌初句「世別由業生」。「非由一主先覺而生」者，破外計也。但由有情業差別起，成立自宗。一主先覺而生者，有其多種，或以梵王、或大自在天以為一主，起於先覺生於世間。或計於我以為一主，起於先覺生於世間。非由一主先覺而生者，總非上計。《正理》兼破無因論等，廣破邪執，自立宗云世別由業生。云何知然？見業用故。謂世現見愛、非愛果差別生時，定由業用。如農夫類由勤正業，有稼穡等可愛果生。有諸愚夫行盜等業，便招非愛殺、縛等果。復見亦有從初處胎，不由現因有樂有苦。既見現在，要業為先方能引得愛、非愛果。知前樂、苦必業為先，故非無因諸內外事自然而有種種差別。又世現見，造善者少、造惡者多，然於世間有情樂少、苦多，可得以現見為門，非現見成故。謂世現見造作種種淨、不淨業為因緣故，便有種種樂、苦果生。又云：然不肖者以見世聞樂施者貧苦、慳悋者富樂，便增邪見謂果無因。此由於田及思數習所得異熟、增上、等流果差別中不了達故。謂有先世於良福田暫植施因故招富樂，然不數習能捨物思，故於今生仍惟慳悋。若有先世數施非田，則於今生貧窮樂施。於如是義何致愚迷？故由有情先世業力，及現士用二種世間差別果生，理善成立。此論言但由有情業差別起，此之「但」字總非諸計。

"The treatise says […] arises from differentiation of karma": this explains the first quarter of the verse, "The diversity of the world is born from karma." "It is not produced through prior thought by a single lord": this refutes the assertions of outside traditions. That it solely arises from the differentiation of sentient beings' karma establishes our own tenet. Regarding "produced through prior thought by a single lord," there are various types: some hold Brahmā or Maheśvara to be a single lord who conceived a prior thought and generated the world; others hold an ātman to be a single lord who conceived a prior thought and generated the world. "It is not produced through prior thought by a single lord" completely rejects the above positions. The Nyāyānusāra additionally refutes theories of no-cause and so forth, extensively refuting erroneous attachments, and establishes its own tenet, saying that the diversity of the world is born from karma. How is this known to be so? Because karma's function is seen. That is to say, in the world it is visibly seen that when diverse pleasant and unpleasant fruits arise, it is definitely due to the function of karma. For instance, farmers, by diligently engaging in proper work, have delightful fruits arise, such as harvests. There are foolish ordinary people who perform actions such as theft, and thereby incur unpleasant fruits such as execution and imprisonment. Furthermore, it is also seen that from the initial entry into the womb, without present causes, there is pleasure and suffering. Since in the present it is seen that karma must come first before pleasant and unpleasant fruits can be drawn forth, we know that former pleasure and suffering must have karma as their prerequisite; therefore, it is not without causes that various internal and external affairs spontaneously possess diverse differences. Moreover, it is visibly seen in the world that those who do good are few, while those who do evil are many, and yet among sentient beings in the world, pleasure is little and suffering is great; this can be taken as an approach based on the visibly seen, for it is established from what is visibly seen. That is to say, it is visibly seen in the world that because the performance of various pure and impure karmas acts as causes and conditions, diverse fruits of pleasure and suffering are born. It also says: Yet the unvirtuous, because they see in the world that those who take pleasure in giving are poor and suffering, while those who are stingy are rich and happy, increase their wrong views, claiming that fruits are causeless. This is because they fail to comprehend the differences among vipāka, adhipati, and niṣyanda fruits obtained from the field and from frequent cultivation of intention. That is to say, there are those who in a previous life briefly planted the cause of giving in a fertile field of merit and therefore incur wealth and pleasure, but who did not frequently cultivate the thought capable of renouncing things, and so in their present life are still solely stingy. If there are those who in a previous life frequently gave to what was not a fertile field, then in their present life they will be poor yet take pleasure in giving. Why should one become confused about such an explanation? Therefore, it is well established by reason that through the power of sentient beings' past karma and present human effort, the diverse fruits of the two kinds of world arise. This treatise says "solely arises from differentiation of sentient beings' karma"; the word "solely" completely denies all those [erroneous] doctrines.