俱舍論疏 20.6

20.6

論「若未來世至皆能繫縛」，此釋意識相應自相惑也。貪、瞋、慢三雖在未來，遍自所緣常恒決定，於未斷然常繫所緣，要因見聞方能現起，故於三世非定遍行。《正理論》云「貪、瞋、慢三是自相惑，如前已辨。諸聖教中處處見有分明文證，且如經言『佛告衣帒母：「汝眼於色若不見時，彼色為緣起欲貪不？」「不爾。大德！」』乃至廣說。又契經說『佛告大母：「汝意云何？諸所有色，非汝眼見、非汝曾見、非汝當見、非希求見，汝為因比起欲、起貪、起親、起愛等不？」「不爾。大德！」』」乃至廣說（已上論文）。以貪、瞋、慢起不定故，於此事中但是已生未斷即繫此事。然於此中有繫三世，亦得名為遍三世也。過去貪等不能遍繫三世一切有漏法盡，現在隨其所緣廣狹不同，但起即繫。雖有通緣三世法者，亦無現在貪等能緣三世有漏法盡。若未來世意識相應別相煩惱，依總類說即緣三世有漏法盡。雖此不繫，即彼繫故。非不亦有唯繫過去及未來者，如一類貪唯繫此眼識及相應法性決定者。此識不生，此豈不唯緣未來世法。准此，亦有唯緣過、現世，亦有通繫三世法者。過去、現在若生未斷，即繫現在、過去；不見聞境，不為一切過去、現在貪等繫縛。

The Śāstra says: "If in the future [...] all are able to bind." This explains the defilements of specific characteristics associated with mental consciousness. Although attachment, anger, and pride in the future are constantly and unfailingly fixed throughout their own cognitive objects, continually binding their cognitive objects while unabandoned, they must depend on seeing or hearing before they can actually arise; hence they do not definitely operate universally throughout the three time periods. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Attachment, anger, and pride are defilements of specific characteristics, as explained previously. Clear textual evidence is seen in various places throughout the sacred teachings. As a sūtra states: 'The Buddha told the mother of Civaracāra: "When your eye does not see visual form, does desire and attachment arise with that form as condition?" "No, Venerable One!"' and so forth in detail. Another sūtra states: 'The Buddha told the Great Mother: "What do you think? In regard to all visual forms that you have not seen with your eye, have never seen, will not see, and do not seek to see, do you on their account give rise to desire, give rise to attachment, give rise to affection, give rise to love, and so forth?" "No, Venerable One!"' and so forth in detail" (thus far the Śāstra's text). Because the arising of attachment, anger, and pride is not fixed, in regard to this thing, as long as it has already arisen and is not yet abandoned, it binds this thing. However, in this context there is binding of the three time periods, which may also be termed 'pervading the three time periods'. Past attachment and so forth cannot universally bind all defiled phenomena of the three time periods completely; the present, according to the varying breadth of its cognitive objects, binds whatever it arises in relation to. Although there are those that generally take the phenomena of the three time periods as cognitive objects, there is also no present attachment or the like that can take all defiled phenomena of the three time periods completely as cognitive objects. If they are defilements of specific characteristics associated with the mental consciousness of the future, speaking according to their general class, they take all defiled phenomena of the three time periods as cognitive objects. Even though this one does not bind it, that one does bind it. It is not that there are none that bind only the past and the future: just as a certain class of attachment binds only this visual consciousness and its associated mental factors whose nature is predetermined. When this consciousness does not arise, how could this not take only future phenomena as cognitive objects? By analogy with this, there are also those that take only past and present periods as cognitive objects, and those that generally bind phenomena of all three time periods. In the past and present, if they have arisen and are not yet abandoned, they bind the present and the past; objects that are not seen or heard are not bound by all past and present attachment and so forth.