俱舍論疏 17.169

17.169

論「又業障中至易見易知」，通極難也。《正理論》云「何故名障？能障聖道及道資糧并離染故。非唯無間是業障體，所有定業能障見諦，一切皆應是業障攝。謂有諸業造作增長，能感惡趣、卵生、濕生、女身、人、天第八有等，并感大梵順後受業，或色、無色一處二生有，此皆無入見諦理。何緣不說是業障收？見此類中有非定故。謂如是業種類中，皆有強緣可令迴轉，不障聖道及道資糧。故於此中雖有少業不可轉者，不立為障。無間種類皆不可轉，故唯於此立為業障。」《毘婆沙》說「此五因緣易見、易知，說為業障。謂處、趣、生果及補特伽羅。處謂此五定以母等為起處故，趣謂此五定以地獄為所趣故，生謂此五定無間生感異熟故，果謂此五決定能招非愛果故。補特伽羅謂此五逆依行重惑。補特伽羅共了此人能害母等，餘業不爾，不立為障。餘障廢立，如應當知。」問曰：何故梵天非聖所生，起戒取處不起聖道加行，因何不立為異熟障？答曰：以離染故，非障也。非如北洲、無想、三惡趣中不能離染。《婆沙》一百一十五說五因緣云：一自性故，謂此五種性是決定極重惡業。二趣、三生、四果、五人，同此論不說處也。准《正理論》，一義立煩惱障，謂數行。一義立異熟障定不能離染。《婆沙》一百一十五云「問：餘洲亦有異熟，如扇搋等，此中何故不說？答：此中應說而不說者，當知此是有餘之說。是以前說此中三障皆有餘說（准此論及《婆沙》皆云障聖道及聖道加行名之為障。而不說梵王，是有餘說。若准《正理》，加離染義，即是決定）。復有說：此中但說決定為障。彼非決定，由彼有情所有異熟，或有為障、或不為障，是以不說。」《正理》四十三云「豈不三洲處、扇搋等，身非聖道器，故異熟障攝？無如是理。以於彼生引業所牽、同分相續，可成男等為聖道器。唯三惡趣、無想、北洲，決定無容證聖道義，故唯於彼立異熟障」。此釋同《婆沙》第二釋。扇搋等若前是男身等可入聖道，謂除去等。及先是有根、後無根等，先非二形、後二形等，或先扇搋等後非扇搋等。如有黃門好救牛黃門事，現身變成男等。有說彼處唯居異生，餘處皆容與聖者共，不說是異熟障攝。此釋即有梵王難也，梵王亦唯是異生故。此應以有餘說通。

On the Śāstra's statement, 'Furthermore, among karmic obstacles... easy to see and easy to know': This resolves a very difficult problem. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Why are they called obstacles? Because they are capable of obstructing the noble path, the provisions for the path, and detachment from defilement. It is not that only the acts of immediate retribution are the essential nature of karmic obstacles; all determinate karmas capable of obstructing the vision of the truths ought to be included under karmic obstacles. That is to say, there are karmas that, having been committed and accumulated, can induce rebirth in the wretched destinies, egg-birth, moisture-birth, a female body, an eighth existence among humans and gods, etc., as well as karma whose result is experienced subsequently in the heaven of Mahābrahmā, or existences of taking two births in a single realm of form or the formless realm—in none of these cases is there any principle of entering into the vision of the truths. For what reason are they not said to be included among karmic obstacles? Because within these classes there are instances that are indeterminate. That is, within such classes of karma, there are always strong conditions that can cause them to be averted, so that they do not obstruct the noble path or the provisions for the path. Therefore, although there is a small portion of karmas among these that cannot be averted, they are not established as obstacles. All of the category of acts of immediate retribution are unavoidable; hence only these are established as karmic obstacles.' The Vibhāṣā says: 'These five are stated to be karmic obstacles because of five causes and conditions that are easy to see and easy to know: namely, basis (āśraya/sthāna), destiny (gati), rebirth, fruit, and person (pudgala). "Basis" means that these five determinately take mother and so forth as their locus of arising. "Destiny" means that these five determinately take hell as their destination. "Rebirth" means that these five determinately induce their maturation in the immediately following birth. "Fruit" means that these five determinately bring about undesirable fruits. "Person" means that these five acts of immediate retribution rely on persons who practice heavy defilements, whom everyone recognizes as capable of killing their mother, etc. Other karmas are not like this, and so are not established as obstacles. The establishment and exclusion of the remaining obstacles should be understood accordingly.' Question: Why is the Brahmā heaven, not being a place where noble ones are born and being a locus where the adherence to rules and rituals arises without the preliminary application for the noble path arising, not established as a maturation obstacle? Answer: Because detachment from passion is possible there, it is not an obstacle. It is not like the Northern Continent, the heaven without ideation, or the three wretched destinies, where detachment from passion is impossible. Fascicle 115 of the Vibhāṣā explains the five conditions as: first, by intrinsic nature, meaning that the nature of these five is determinately extremely grave evil karma; the second is destiny, the third is rebirth, the fourth is fruit, and the fifth is person—the same as this Śāstra, without mentioning basis. According to the Nyāyānusāra, by one principle defilement obstacles are established, namely frequent activity; by another principle maturation obstacles are established, namely the determinate inability to attain detachment from passion. Fascicle 115 of the Vibhāṣā says: 'Question: There are also maturations in other continents, such as the ṣaṇḍha (eunuch) and so forth; why are they not mentioned here? Answer: What should have been mentioned here but was not mentioned should be known as an incomplete statement (avaśeṣokti). Therefore, as previously stated, all three obstacles mentioned here are incomplete statements.' (Based on this Śāstra and the Vibhāṣā, both say that obstructing the noble path and its preliminary applications is called an obstacle; not mentioning King Brahmā is an incomplete statement. If based on the Nyāyānusāra, adding the criterion of detachment from passion makes it determinate.) 'Others say: Here, only what is determinately an obstacle is stated. Those [others] are not determinate, because the maturations possessed by those sentient beings may or may not act as obstacles; therefore they are not mentioned.' Fascicle 43 of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Is it not the case that in the three continents, eunuchs (ṣaṇḍha) and so forth do not have bodies that are vessels for the noble path, and are thus subsumed under maturation obstacles? There is no such principle. For within that birth, propelled by projecting karma, the continuum of generic similarity can become male, etc., serving as a vessel for the noble path. Only the three wretched destinies, the heaven without ideation, and the Northern Continent determinately have no possibility of realizing the noble path; therefore only in their cases are maturation obstacles established.' This explanation agrees with the second explanation of the Vibhāṣā. If a ṣaṇḍha or the like was previously a male body, etc., they can enter the noble path—meaning after removal, etc. Also, where one previously had faculties and later lacked faculties, or was previously not of dual gender and later became of dual gender, or was previously a ṣaṇḍha and later ceased to be a ṣaṇḍha. For instance, there is the story of the eunuch who kindly saved a castrated ox and in his present body turned into a man. Some say that since that locus is inhabited exclusively by ordinary worldlings (pṛthagjana) while other places can all be shared with noble ones, it is not said to be subsumed under maturation obstacles. This explanation would then be subject to the objection regarding King Brahmā, because King Brahmā is also exclusively an ordinary worldling. This should be resolved by means of the incomplete statement.