俱舍論疏 20.3

20.3

論「諸有情類於此事中」，已下大文第六明世縛事通局。於中有四：一世縛通局、二證三世有、三建立三世、四破三世有。此下兩頌第一明世縛通局。此中意說能繫三世對所繫三世辨繫通局。今言事者，是所繫事。於此事中隨眠隨增者，名之為繫；若不隨增，不名為繫。其隨增者非要現緣，雖在過、未，若未斷位，皆是隨增。隨增有二：一相應隨增、二所緣隨增。於未斷位，一切隨眠於自相應相無差別，皆隨增也。於自所緣相無差別，遍隨增也。所緣定故，不可說言於自所緣有遍、不遍。雖諸煩惱有自相、共相，意識、五識緣境寬狹力用不同，遍自所緣相無差別。若將能繫三世隨眠對其所繫，隨於何事，辨三世惑繫、不繫別，於中即有遍、不遍異。有人浪釋，恐煩不述。此兩行頌，前一行半明自相惑，後半行頌明共相惑。就前文中，前三句明過、現六識自相惑，後三句簡未來意、五不同。頌首云「若於此事中未斷」七字，流至於下明繫通局，必不斷故。

The Śāstra says: "Sentient beings in regard to this thing..."; from here on is the sixth major section, clarifying the scope—universal or restricted—of binding across the time periods. Within this there are four topics: 1. the scope of binding across the time periods; 2. proving the existence of the three time periods; 3. establishing the three time periods; 4. refuting the existence of the three time periods. The two verses below are the first: clarifying the scope of binding across the time periods. The intended meaning here is: examining the universal or restricted nature of binding by comparing the latent defilements of the three time periods that can bind against the things of the three time periods that are bound. What is now called a "thing" is the object bound. If a latent defilement increases in propensity in regard to this thing, it is termed "bound"; if it does not increase in propensity, it is not termed "bound". Such increasing in propensity does not require an actual present cognitive condition: even if located in the past or the future, as long as it is in an unabandoned state, it invariably increases in propensity. Increasing in propensity has two kinds: 1. increasing in propensity through association; 2. increasing in propensity through the cognitive object. In the unabandoned state, all latent defilements increase in propensity without difference of aspect in regard to their own associated [mental factors]. In regard to their own cognitive objects, they universally increase in propensity without difference of aspect. Because the cognitive object is fixed, one cannot say that there is universality or non-universality in regard to its own cognitive object. Although defilements have specific characteristics and shared characteristics, and the mental consciousness and the five consciousnesses differ in scope and power when grasping cognitive objects, their universal extension over their own cognitive objects has no difference of aspect. If one takes the latent defilements of the three time periods that can bind and compares them to what is bound, then according to whatever thing it may be, in distinguishing whether the defilements of the three time periods bind or do not bind, there are differences of universality and non-universality. Some commentators offer reckless explanations; fearing wordiness, I will not discuss them. Of these two verses, the first verse and a half clarifies defilements of specific characteristics, while the latter half verse clarifies defilements of shared characteristics. Within the first text, the first three lines clarify defilements of specific characteristics of the six consciousnesses in the past and present, while the latter three lines distinguish the differences of the future mental consciousness and the five [sense consciousnesses]. The seven characters at the head of the verse, "if in regard to this thing it is unabandoned", carry over into the sections below that clarify the scope of binding, because it must not yet be abandoned.