俱舍論疏 2.224

2.224

論「故如是說至心所法界」，此句數分別也。眼等五識所依性通二，同時依止根是根性，非是等無間性。次第滅意是等無間性，亦是根性。次第滅心所是等無間性，非根性。根性寬通色、狹不至心所。等無間性寬通心所、狹不通色。左右寬狹不同，故成四句。自下四句皆准此釋。意識所依性唯是心王，等無間性通其心所。若先將意識所依性問等無間緣性，此即以狹問寬，順前句答。若先將等無間緣性問所依性，即是以寬問狹，順後句答。餘文可解。自下偏句，皆准此釋。問：羅漢後心豈非是意識所依而非等無間耶？何故乃言是意識所依性，定是意識等無間緣？答：此中舉作所依性以為問答故，非舉得所依相。羅漢後心但得依相名為意界，更無後識，非作所依，是俱非句攝。又解此是舉果以問依，故不說羅漢後心。

The passage in the treatise from 'Therefore it is said as follows' up to 'the mental factor element' is an analysis by four permutations. The status of being a basis for the five consciousnesses of the eye and so on broadly applies to two kinds: the simultaneous supporting faculty possesses the nature of a faculty, but not the nature of an immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya). The sequentially ceased mind possesses the nature of an immediate condition and also the nature of a faculty. Sequentially ceased mental factors possess the nature of an immediate condition, but not the nature of a faculty. The nature of a faculty is broad in including form, but narrow in not reaching mental factors. The nature of an immediate condition is broad in including mental factors, but narrow in not including form. Because the broad and narrow scopes differ on both sides, four permutations are formed. All four permutations below should be explained according to this model. The status of being a basis for mental consciousness is exclusively the primary mind, while the nature of an immediate condition broadly includes its mental factors. If one first takes the status of being a basis for mental consciousness and asks about the status of being an immediate condition, this is asking about the broad by means of the narrow, which is answered in accordance with the first permutation. If one first takes the status of being an immediate condition and asks about the status of being a basis, this is asking about the narrow by means of the broad, which is answered in accordance with the second permutation. The rest of the text is intelligible. The asymmetric permutations below should all be understood according to this. Question: Is not the final mind of an Arhat a basis of mental consciousness and yet not an immediate condition? Why then is it said that whatever is of the nature of a basis of mental consciousness is definitely an immediate condition for mental consciousness? Answer: Here, it is raised as actively serving as a basis in the question and answer; it does not raise possessing the characteristics of a basis. The final mind of an Arhat merely possesses the characteristics of a basis and is called the mind element; since there is no subsequent consciousness, it does not actively serve as a basis, and is subsumed under the category of being neither. Another explanation is that this is asking about the basis by raising the result; therefore, the final mind of an Arhat is not spoken of.