俱舍論疏 19.144

19.144

論「於無德中至名為邪慢」，《正理論》云「言無德者，謂諸惡行違功德故，立無德名，猶如不善。彼於成此無德法中，謂己有斯殊勝功德，恃惡高舉，故名邪慢（已上論文）。」其增上慢所緣境者，若執此法不生為德，即緣此不生法為境。若執此劣法以為勝德，即緣此劣法為境。故《婆沙》四十三云「若起增上慢：我生已盡。此何所緣？答：乃至此即緣生，乃至我生已盡者，隨於何蘊作生想，此即緣生者。緣所盡生，即有漏蘊。問：此增上慢亦應能緣慢者所執有漏道行，何故但說緣所盡生？答：亦應說彼而不說者，應知此中是有餘說。復次緣道行者唯修所斷，緣所盡生通五部慢，此中但說能遍緣者。復次有漏道行亦是生攝，故說緣生。有餘師說：所執道行說名為生，能生慢故，此慢但說能盡生道。彼說非理。後依梵行已立等慢不說緣生故，此慢緣所盡生，不違理故（准上論文，緣道及所盡生）。」又云「若起增上慢：我梵行已立。此即緣彼心、心所法。」已上本論文，已下《婆沙》釋。「梵行已立者，隨於何處作梵行想，諸阿羅漢於學道名已立，於無學道名今立。此即緣彼心、心所法者，此增上慢緣彼所執有漏道行，無漏梵行非彼境故。」已上論文。又《婆沙》云「問：誰起幾種增上慢耶？有說異生起五種，謂於勝品有漏善根，及預流等四沙門果。預流起四，除第一，於預流勝根亦起增上慢。一來起三，除前二。不還起二，除前三。諸阿羅漢，無增上慢。有說：異生起九種，謂於勝品有漏善根，及於無漏四向四果。預流七，除前二。一來向六，一來果五，不還向四，不還果三除前六，阿羅漢向起二除前七，阿羅漢果無增上慢。預流向無起增上慢義。評曰：聖者亦於勝有漏善起增上慢故。六聖者如前所起，各復增一（六聖者，謂預流果至阿羅漢向。預流向不起故，阿羅漢果無慢也）。問：得忍善根等，起增上慢謂為聖道。此慢是何界？一說是色界。不應作是說，未離下染故，不起上染故（准此論文，未得根本禪緣未至定不起上染也）。一說欲界繫。問：若爾，欲界無順決擇分忍，此何所緣？答：欲界雖無順決擇分，而有彼相似善根，此增上慢緣彼而起。欲界具有一切功德相似法故（准此論文，未離欲染於未至定起貪等者，俱於相似善上起也。應檢〈定品〉也）。問：增上慢、邪慢，俱於未得處起，云何差別？答：復次增上慢於等功德或勝功德處起。邪慢都無功德處起。復次增上慢內、外道俱起。邪慢唯外道起。復次增上慢。異生、聖者俱起，邪慢唯異生起。是謂差別。七慢見、修所斷，諸說不同。評曰：應作是說，七慢皆通見、修所斷。問：我慢、邪慢云何通修所斷？答：有身見及邪見，於五部法執我、我所及撥為無，此後或緣見苦所斷法，起我慢及邪慢，或乃至緣修所斷法，起我慢及邪慢，故此二慢通修所斷。七慢三界，兩說不同。評曰：色、無色界亦具七慢。問：彼無校量種姓等義，寧有卑慢等？答：彼雖無有校量種等，而有比度定等功德。評曰：應作是說，非卑慢等要比度他勝劣而起，無始時來數習力故，雖生上界亦有現行，是故三界皆具七慢。」

On the Śāstra's statement: 'From [the thought] regarding [states] devoid of virtue... to... this is called wrongful pride (mithyāmāna)': The Nyāyānusāra states: '"Devoid of virtue" means that evil conduct runs contrary to virtues, hence it is designated "devoid of virtue", just like that which is unwholesome. When, with respect to the actualization of these virtueless qualities, one claims that one possesses such excellent virtues, becoming puffed up relying on evil, it is therefore called wrongful pride (the above is the text of the treatise).' As for the intentional object grasped by pride of superiority (adhimāna): if one grasps the non-arising of this dharma as a virtue, one takes this non-arising dharma as the object; if one grasps this inferior dharma as a superior virtue, one takes this inferior dharma as the object. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 43, says: 'If pride of superiority arises thinking: "My birth is exhausted," what does this take as its object? Answer: Up to, this takes birth as its object... up to, "My birth is exhausted" means: whatever skandhas one conceives of as birth, this [pride] takes birth as its object, taking the birth that is to be exhausted as its object, which is the defiled skandhas. Question: Should this pride of superiority not also take as its object the defiled practices of the path grasped by the proud person? Why is it said only to take the birth that is to be exhausted as its object? Answer: It should indeed also have been mentioned, but is not mentioned; one should know that here this is an incomplete statement. Furthermore, that which takes the practices of the path as its object is abandoned only by cultivation, whereas that which takes the birth that is to be exhausted as its object pervades the prides of the five categories; here, only that which can take all objects universally is mentioned. Furthermore, defiled practices of the path are also included within birth, hence it is said to take birth as its object. Other masters say: The practices of the path that are grasped are designated "birth" because they can give birth to pride; this pride is stated only as the path that can exhaust birth. What they say is unreasonable. Because subsequently, with respect to prides such as "the religious life has been established", it is not said to take birth as its object; and because this pride taking the birth that is to be exhausted as its object does not contradict reason (following the above treatise text, it takes both the path and the birth that is to be exhausted as its object).' It also says: 'If pride of superiority arises thinking: "My religious life has been established," this takes those very minds and mental factors as its object.' The above is the root text; below is the Vibhāṣā's explanation: '"The religious life has been established" means: whatever state one conceives of as the religious life; for arhats, with respect to the path of the trainee (śaikṣa) it is called "already established", and with respect to the path of the non-trainee (aśaikṣa) it is called "now established". "Takes those very minds and mental factors as its object" means: this pride of superiority takes the defiled practices of the path grasped by him as its object, because uncorrupted (anāsrava) religious life is not its intentional object.' The above is the text of the treatise. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā says: 'Question: Who gives rise to how many kinds of pride of superiority? Some say: Worldlings give rise to five kinds, namely with respect to superior defiled roots of virtue and the four śramaṇa fruits beginning with stream-enterer. A stream-enterer gives rise to four, excluding the first, and also gives rise to pride of superiority with respect to the superior faculties of a stream-enterer. A once-returner gives rise to three, excluding the first two. A non-returner gives rise to two, excluding the first three. Arhats have no pride of superiority. Some say: Worldlings give rise to nine kinds, namely with respect to superior defiled roots of virtue and the four paths and four fruits of the uncorrupted. A stream-enterer gives rise to seven, excluding the first two. One on the path to once-returning gives rise to six; a once-returner gives rise to five; one on the path to non-returning gives rise to four; a non-returner gives rise to three, excluding the first six; one on the path to arhatship gives rise to two, excluding the first seven; the fruit of arhatship has no pride of superiority. One on the path to stream-entry has no occasion to give rise to pride of superiority. The definitive judgment (kṛtānta) states: Because noble ones also give rise to pride of superiority with respect to superior defiled wholesome [states], the six noble ones, as raised previously, each add one more (the six noble ones refer to [those from] the fruit of stream-entry up to the path to arhatship. Because one on the path to stream-entry does not give rise to it, and the fruit of arhatship has no pride). Question: When one obtains the root of virtue of forbearance (kṣānti) and so forth, one gives rise to pride of superiority, taking it to be the noble path. To which realm does this pride belong? One theory says: It belongs to the form realm. One should not say this, because one has not yet abandoned the defilements of the lower [realm], and does not give rise to the defilements of the upper [realm] (following this treatise text, not having attained the root dhyāna, when taking the threshold absorption (anāgamya-samādhi) as object, one does not give rise to upper defilements). Another theory says: It is bound to the desire realm. Question: If so, there is no forbearance belonging to the aids to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya) in the desire realm; what does this take as its object? Answer: Although the desire realm lacks the aids to penetration, it has roots of virtue similar to them; this pride of superiority arises taking them as its object, because the desire realm possesses all dharmas similar to virtues (following this treatise text, when one who has not separated from the defilements of desire gives rise to greed and so forth with respect to the threshold absorption, these all arise on similar wholesome [dharmas]. One should examine the "Chapter on Meditative Absorptions" (Samāpattinirdeśa)). Question: Pride of superiority and wrongful pride both arise regarding states not yet attained; what is the difference between them? Answer: Furthermore, pride of superiority arises with respect to equal virtues or superior virtues. Wrongful pride arises where there is no virtue at all. Furthermore, pride of superiority arises in both Buddhists and non-Buddhists; wrongful pride arises only in non-Buddhists. Furthermore, pride of superiority arises in both worldlings and noble ones; wrongful pride arises only in worldlings. Such are the differences. Regarding whether the seven prides are abandoned by seeing or cultivation, the various explanations differ. The definitive judgment states: It should be said that all seven prides apply to both abandonment by seeing and cultivation. Question: How do the pride of 'I' (ātmamāna) and wrongful pride apply to abandonment by cultivation? Answer: The view of individuality (satkāyadṛṣṭi) and wrongful view grasp 'I' and 'mine' or repudiate as non-existent regarding the dharmas of the five categories; subsequently, taking dharmas abandoned by seeing suffering as object, they give rise to the pride of 'I' and wrongful pride, or up to taking dharmas abandoned by cultivation as object, they give rise to the pride of 'I' and wrongful pride; therefore these two prides apply to abandonment by cultivation. Regarding the seven prides in the three realms, the two explanations differ. The definitive judgment states: The form and formless realms also possess all seven prides. Question: In those realms, there are no considerations of caste, lineage, and so forth; how could there be inferiority pride and so forth? Answer: Although they have no consideration of caste and the like, they make comparisons regarding virtues of absorption and the like. The definitive judgment states: It should be said that it is not that inferiority pride and so forth must arise from comparing others' superiority or inferiority; because of the force of repeated habituation from beginningless time, even when born in the upper realms, it still becomes manifest; therefore, all three realms possess the seven prides.'