俱舍論疏 18.16

18.16

論「隨彼罪增至五倍重苦」，答也。《正理論》云「若造多逆，初一已招無間獄生，餘應無果，無無果失。造多逆人唯一能引，餘助滿故，隨彼罪增苦還增劇。謂由多逆，感地獄中大柔軟身、多猛苦具，受二、三、四、五倍重苦；或無中夭，受苦多時，如何可言餘應無果？」今詳異熟因果通於三世，故知因果相屬性定。五逆果體各別不同，若感色身諸根並感平為增上，令所招果身大柔軟，所生苦受時促品增，平起相續經一劫等。若依《成實論》，若一劫受苦，乃至若造五逆五劫同受，餘後四劫從初為名生報。多同經部一業感多身、多業感一身。若依正量部，若造乃至五逆，五劫受苦，於中初是生報、後四劫是後報，各各別感。若依大乘，《對法論》第八云「問：若造多無間業者，於無間生中云何得受其異熟？答：於一生中頓受一切所得異熟，無有過失。所以者何？若造眾多無間業者，所感身形最極柔軟，所有苦具眾多猛利，由此頓受種種大苦。」又次下文云「於此業中，從初熟位建立順現法受等名，不唯受此一位異熟。乃至若作是說，即善順《訶怨心經》。如彼經言『由無間業，於那落迦中數數死生受大苦異熟。』（准此論文，同經部、正量部說。大乘亦許一業引多生、多業引一生也）。」問：准此《對法》，前後相違。答：有兩釋。一釋：前隨轉理門，同有部相說；後依大乘。若不爾者，前說一生以多倍受苦，如何後說經多劫耶？二釋：准此即若造多逆，於多劫中多倍受苦，由互相資成大苦故，非唯五倍一生受畢。問：若爾，何故《立世經》云「釋迦如來於第九住劫出世，天授造三逆入地獄。至第十劫減，至四萬歲時來生人中證獨覺菩提。」天授造三逆罪，准《訶怨心經》，合受三劫罪。因何不滿一劫得獨覺耶？若謂《立世經》同有部，故是小乘經；《訶怨心經》同正量部等，因何不是小乘經也？兩文相違。《立世經》說文極分明，不可通釋。《訶怨心經》容可釋也。於地獄中數死生者，似死、生故名為生死，如等活地獄。又准《智論》，天授入地獄中猶如拍毱，如何三劫入於地獄？彼宗應思。今詳有部義宗，若造餘趣，次生定受業者，不造五逆。若造餘逆生餘地獄，不造破僧。若先造破僧、後造餘逆，皆入阿鼻。

[On] the treatise's [statement], "According to the increase of those offenses ... fivefold heavier suffering": An answer. The Nyāyānusāra says: "If one commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution, the first one already projects birth in the Avīci hell; the rest would then have no fruit. [Yet] there is no flaw of having no fruit. For a person who commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution, only one is able to project [the life], while the others assist in completing it; thus, in accordance with the increase in those offenses, the suffering increases in intensity. That is, due to multiple offenses of immediate retribution, one is caused to experience a body in hell that is large and soft, with many violent instruments of torture, undergoing two, three, four, or five times the heavier suffering; or without premature death, experiencing suffering for a long time. How could one say that the rest would have no fruit?" Now, upon detailed consideration, cause and fruit of retribution extend across the three times, and therefore we know that the mutual correspondence of cause and fruit has a fixed nature. The fruit-substances of the five offenses of immediate retribution are each distinct and different: if they produce a physical body, all sense faculties are equally projected with augmenting power, causing the projected fruit-body to be large and soft, and the feelings of suffering produced to be shortened in duration but intensified in grade, arising equally in continuity for the duration of a kalpa or the like. If we rely on the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, whether suffering is undergone for one kalpa or, if one commits five offenses of immediate retribution, undergone together for five kalpas, the remaining four kalpas are named after the first as retribution in the immediately following life (upapadyavedanīya). This mostly agrees with the Sautrāntika view that one karma projects multiple bodies and multiple karmas project one body. If we rely on the Saṃmatīya school, if one commits up to five offenses of immediate retribution, one undergoes suffering for five kalpas, among which the first is retribution in the immediately following life and the latter four kalpas are retribution in subsequent lives (aparaparyāyavedanīya), each projecting separately. If we rely on the Mahāyāna, the eighth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says: "Question: If one commits multiple karmas of immediate retribution, how does one experience their retribution within a single birth in the Avīci? Answer: Within a single life, one suddenly experiences all acquired retributions without fault. Why is this? If one commits multiple karmas of immediate retribution, the physical form that is produced is exceedingly soft, and the instruments of suffering are numerous and intense; thereby one suddenly experiences all kinds of great suffering." Furthermore, the subsequent text states: "Among these karmas, the designation 'experienced in the present life' and so forth is established from the initial stage of ripening; it is not that one only experiences retribution at this single stage. Up to: if one explains it thus, it accords well with the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind. As that sūtra states: 'Due to karmas of immediate retribution, one repeatedly dies and is born within Naraka, experiencing the retribution of great suffering.' (According to this text, it agrees with the explanations of the Sautrāntika and Saṃmatīya schools. The Mahāyāna also admits that one karma projects multiple lives and multiple karmas project one life)." Question: According to this Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā, the earlier and later passages contradict each other. Answer: There are two explanations. First explanation: The earlier passage follows the provisional method of reasoning (yuktivāda), speaking in accord with the Sarvāstivāda system; the later passage relies on the Mahāyāna. If this were not so, since the earlier passage speaks of experiencing suffering multiplied many times in a single life, how could the later passage speak of passing through multiple kalpas? Second explanation: According to this, if one commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution, one experiences suffering multiplied many times across multiple kalpas; because they mutually assist each other to produce great suffering, it is not simply that it is experienced fivefold and finished in one life. Question: If so, why does the Lokasthiti-śāstra say: "The Tathāgata Śākyamuni appeared in the world during the ninth kalpa of abiding. Devadatta committed three offenses of immediate retribution and entered hell. When the tenth kalpa decreases to forty thousand years, he will come to be born among humans and realize pratyekabuddha-bodhi." Since Devadatta committed three offenses of immediate retribution, according to the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind, he ought to undergo the retribution of three kalpas. Why then does he attain the pratyekabuddha state without completing even one kalpa? If one says that the Lokasthiti-śāstra accords with the Sarvāstivāda and is therefore a Hīnayāna sūtra, while the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind accords with the Saṃmatīya and others, why would it not also be a Hīnayāna sūtra? The two texts contradict each other. The statement of the Lokasthiti-śāstra is extremely clear and cannot be harmonized away, whereas the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind can be interpreted. The "repeated death and birth" in hell is called birth-and-death because it resembles death and birth, as in the Saṃjīva hell. Furthermore, according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Devadatta's entering hell was like bouncing a ball; how could he enter hell for three kalpas? That school should reflect on this. Now, on detailed consideration of the Sarvāstivāda doctrine: if one has already committed karma that is definitely to be experienced in the immediately following life in another destiny, one does not commit the five offenses of immediate retribution. If one has committed other offenses of immediate retribution that lead to birth in other hells, one does not commit schism in the Saṅgha. If one first commits schism in the Saṅgha and afterwards commits other offenses of immediate retribution, all lead into Avīci.