俱舍論疏 20.7

20.7

論「未來五識至亦能繫三世」，釋五識相應惑也。若已生即繫，意與五同，故不別說。意識相應貪等，生與不生皆容遍行三世法也。五識相應生唯自世，不生遍三，所以別說。不生遍三者，此由五識依、緣必同時故。生必同時，不生即容境界三世，以色等境行於三世不待識故。識若生時，必待境故，雖世不同，性縛定故。於中有二：或令所緣歷其三世、或於一所緣參差不定、分其三世。今應指事作斯問答。問：頗有於此一色事中，此但指此事，不問三世？即此事中三世貪等，於此事中為繫不？答：過去、現在貪、瞋、慢等，緣此事生，未斷即繫。若過去、現在貪、瞋、慢等緣餘法生，不繫此事。及雖緣此一色事生，被對治道斷即不繫。繫有一種，隨已生不斷。不繫二類，謂不緣此生及緣已斷，此即通其六識，自相煩惱皆同此也。若在未來即有差別，意識相應定繫此事，未來必有眾多貪等，於所緣定性繫此故。由此未來生與不生皆有遍行，生與不生皆有繫此一色事故。若眼識相應諸可生者名繫自世，不名遍行。諸不生者定有一類繫此事也。同色境中於一剎那，必有總、別眾多識故，眾多識中唯一得生，餘不生故。無有過、現一色事中，不為未來眾多不生眼識相應貪等繫者，由此不生名為遍行。見、疑、無明，過去、未來定繫此一事也，此由二世皆遍行故。於現起者，若緣即繫、不緣不繫。由此《婆沙》歷六句等作問答云「於此事中頗有過去愛結繫，而有未來愛結繫耶？未來愛結繫，而為過去愛結繫耶？此應順前句答。」如是但有過去愛結繫，必為未來愛結繫也。所以名為順前句者歷六句。一一句中皆有兩句問答，此同前句，故名順前句也，亦名稱前句答。第二句「問云：頗有未來愛結繫，亦為過去愛結繫耶？答云：若前不生、生者已斷即不繫。若前生不斷即繫。」此言斷、不斷望未來非等品說。愛有三品，於此一色事中容有三品愛，不緣此一色事生、緣餘事生，緣餘事起此三品愛，皆不繫此一色事。若前不生不繫，理合通於三品。前生已斷不繫，此於三品中，或是上品、或是中品、或上中合說，必非下品，已說未來繫故，斷惑必三世同斷故。若過去世下品斷者，未來三品皆斷，不可言有未來愛結繫故。理定如上。若前生不斷即繫者，此亦通其三品，理必應爾。《婆沙》五十八歷六問云「若於此事有過去愛結繫，亦有未來耶？答：如是。設有未來，復有過去耶？答：若前生未斷即繫。若前未生、設生已斷則不繫。問：若時過去愛結已斷，即時未來愛結亦已斷。若時過去愛結未斷，即時未來愛結亦未斷。今何故說若前生未斷則繫，若前未生設生已斷則不繫耶？外國諸師作如是說：若前生未斷則繫者，說中三品結。若前未生則不繫者，說下三品結。設生已斷則不繫者，說上三品結。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：若前生未斷即繫者，說九品結。若前未生則不繫者，說後三品結。設生已斷則不繫者，說前六品結。如過去前六品愛結已斷，未來亦爾。後三品愛結雖未斷而未生故，在未來為繫，非過去。此中意說：若於此事有未來愛結未斷，亦有前生愛結未斷，即於此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有未來愛結未斷，而前於此愛結未生，雖餘處生，而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷，即於此事無有過去愛結繫義。」已上第一句，理實品數應如前說。然《婆沙》云「若生未斷即繫說九品者，據具縛說。若前不生即不繫，及生者已斷即不繫，皆據斷六品說。即當一來果，此據有繫故，非不還果等。此以餘處生名不繫故，非是已斷，斷故非具縛。若前未生則不繫者，說後三品，據一來說。設生已斷即不繫者，說前六品，亦是一來。應更思之。若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有現在耶？答：若現在前。設有現在，復有過去耶？答：若前生未斷等（云云如前。已上第二句）。若於此事有未來愛結繫，亦有現在耶？答：若現在前。設有現在，復有未來耶？答：如是（已上第三句）。若於此事有過去愛結繫，亦有未來、現在耶？答：未來必繫，現在若現在前。設有未來、現在，復有過去耶？答：若前生未斷等（已上第四句）。若於此事有未來愛結繫，亦有過去、現在耶？答：此中有四句（隨其所應）。設有過去、現在，復有未來耶？答：如是（已上第五句）。若於此事有現在愛結繫，亦有過去、未來耶？答：未來必繫。過去若前生未斷等，設過去、未來，復有現在耶？答：若現在前（已上第六句）。如愛結歷六，應知恚、慢、嫉、慳非遍行無明結歷六亦爾，迷自相結義相似故。如見歷六，應知取疑等歷六亦爾，迷共相結義相似故。雖有廣狹而亦相類（已上歷六句）。若於此事有過去愛結，亦有過去恚結繫耶？答：若前生未斷則繫等。設有過去恚結繫，復有過去愛結繫耶（已上小七第一句）？若於此事有過去愛結繫，亦有未來恚結繫耶？設有未來恚結繫，復有過去愛結繫耶（第二句）？若於此事有過去愛結繫，亦有現在恚結繫耶？設有現在恚結繫，復有過去愛結繫耶（第三句）？若於此事有過去愛結繫，亦有過去、現在恚結繫耶（答此中有四句）？設有過去、現在恚結繫，復有過去愛結繫耶（已上第四句）？若於此事有過去愛，亦有未來、現在恚耶（答此中有三句）？設有未來、現在恚結，復有過去愛結繫耶（已上第五句）？若於此事有過去愛結，亦有過去、未來恚結耶（答此中有三句）？設有過去、未來恚結，復有過去愛結繫耶（已上第六句）？若於此事有過去愛結繫，亦有過去、未來、現在恚結繫耶？答此中有五句。設有過去、未來、現在恚結繫，復有過去愛結繫耶（已上第七句）？如對恚結繫，對嫉，慳結亦爾。以愛對彼作小七句，如小七，大七亦爾。差別者，以二對一，乃至以八對一。謂以過去愛結、恚結，先對過去慢結，次對未來，次對現在，次對過去、現在，次對未來、現在，次對過去、未來，復對過去、未來、現在。問一行歷六，小七、大七有何差別？答：復次以不相似法對不相似法作問答，不以世定，故名一行。以相似法對相似法作問答，以世定故，名歷六。以不相似法對不相似法作問答，以世定、以一對一，故名小七。以相似法對不相似法作問答，以世定、以二對一，乃至以八對一，故名大七。是謂差別。若共相惑，即不同此答。頗有過去見結繫亦未來也？答曰：如是。頗有未來見結繫亦過去耶？答曰：如是。此是以等問等，述可句答。若過去、未來對現在，其過去、未來定繫，現在若生即繫。」

The śāstra says, 'The [defilements associated with the] future five consciousnesses... can also bind the three time periods.' This explains the defilements associated with the five consciousnesses. If they have already arisen, they immediately bind; in this regard, the mental [consciousness] and the five [consciousnesses] are identical, so they are not mentioned separately. Greedy desire, etc., associated with the mental consciousness, whether arisen or unarisen, are all capable of universally traversing the dharmas of the three time periods. Those associated with the five consciousnesses, when arisen, [bind] only their own time period, whereas when unarisen, they pervade all three, which is why they are explained separately. As for the unarisen pervading the three, this is because the basis and object of the five consciousnesses must be simultaneous. When they arise, they must be simultaneous, but when unarisen, their objective realms can admit the three time periods, because objects such as visible forms move through the three time periods without depending on consciousness. If consciousness arises, it necessarily depends on the object, so although the time periods differ, their intrinsic binding is fixed. Among them there are two [aspects]: either causing the cognitive object to pass through its three time periods, or with respect to a single cognitive object, irregularly demarcating its three time periods. Now one should point to an actual matter to formulate this question and answer. Question: Is it possible that with respect to this one matter of visible form—this merely pointing to this matter without asking about the three time periods—the greedy desire, etc., of the three time periods in this matter binds or does not bind with respect to this matter? Answer: Past and present greedy desire, anger, pride, etc., which arose taking this matter as an object, bind it as long as they are not yet abandoned. If past and present greedy desire, anger, pride, etc., arose taking other dharmas as objects, they do not bind this matter. And even though they arose taking this one matter of visible form as an object, if they have been abandoned by the path of antidotes, they do not bind it. Of binding there is one kind: following what has already arisen and is not abandoned. Of non-binding there are two classes: namely, not having arisen taking this as an object, and having taken it as an object but having been abandoned. This applies across all six consciousnesses; self-characteristic defilements are all identical to this. If they are in the future, there is a difference: those associated with the mental consciousness definitely bind this matter, because in the future there must be numerous [moments of] greedy desire, etc., whose fixed nature regarding their cognitive objects binds this. Therefore, in the future, both arisen and unarisen have universal traversal; both arisen and unarisen bind this one matter of visible form. As for those associated with eye-consciousness, those that are capable of arising are called binding their own time period and are not called universally traversing. Those that do not arise definitely have one class that binds this matter. Because within the same objective realm of visible form at a single moment there must be numerous consciousnesses in general and in particular, among these numerous consciousnesses only one manages to arise while the rest do not arise. There is no single matter of visible form in the past or present that is not bound by the numerous unarisen [moments of] greedy desire, etc., associated with future eye-consciousness; because of this, the unarisen is called universally traversing. Views, doubt, and ignorance in the past and future definitely bind this one matter, because in both time periods they universally traverse. Regarding those that currently arise: if they take it as an object, they bind it; if they do not take it as an object, they do not bind it. Hence the Vibhāṣā, formulating questions and answers by going through six clauses and so on, says: 'With respect to this matter, is it possible that it is bound by the fetter of past craving and also bound by the fetter of future craving? That it is bound by the fetter of future craving, and also bound by the fetter of past craving? This should be answered by conforming to the previous clause.' Thus, wherever there is binding by the fetter of past craving, there must also be binding by the fetter of future craving. The reason it is called 'conforming to the previous clause' is that one goes through six clauses. In every single clause there are two question-and-answer pairs; this is identical to the previous clause, hence it is called 'conforming to the previous clause', and is also called 'answering in conformity with the previous clause'. The second clause: 'The question asks: Is it possible that it is bound by the fetter of future craving, and also bound by the fetter of past craving? The answer says: If previously it did not arise, or if having arisen it has been abandoned, then it does not bind. If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, then it binds.' These words 'abandoned' and 'not abandoned' are not stated with respect to the future as equal grades. Craving has three grades; with respect to this one matter of visible form there can be three grades of craving: not arising taking this one matter of visible form as an object but arising taking other matters as objects. Arising taking other matters as objects, these three grades of craving all do not bind this one matter of visible form. If previously it did not arise and does not bind, in principle this must apply across all three grades. If having previously arisen it has been abandoned and does not bind, among the three grades this is either the superior grade, the middling grade, or the superior and middling spoken together; it certainly cannot be the inferior grade, because it has already been said that the future binds, and the abandonment of defilements must be abandoned simultaneously across the three time periods. If the inferior grade in the past period is abandoned, all three grades in the future are abandoned, and one could not say that there is binding by the fetter of future craving. The principle is definitely as stated above. If previously it arose and has not been abandoned and thus binds, this also applies across the three grades; in principle it must be so. Vibhāṣā fascicle 58, going through six questions, says: 'If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also [binding by] future [craving]? Answer: Yes. Supposing there is future [craving], is there also past [craving]? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, it binds. If previously it did not arise, or supposing it arose it has been abandoned, it does not bind. Question: When the fetter of past craving has already been abandoned, at that very time the fetter of future craving has also already been abandoned. When the fetter of past craving has not been abandoned, at that very time the fetter of future craving has also not been abandoned. Now why do you say that if previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds, but if previously it did not arise, or supposing it arose it has been abandoned, it does not bind? The foreign masters spoke thus: "If previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds" refers to the middle three grades of fetters. "If previously it did not arise it does not bind" refers to the lower three grades of fetters. "Supposing it arose it has been abandoned it does not bind" refers to the upper three grades of fetters. The masters of the Kaśmīra country say: "If previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds" refers to the nine grades of fetters. "If previously it did not arise it does not bind" refers to the latter three grades of fetters. "Supposing it arose it has been abandoned it does not bind" refers to the former six grades of fetters. Just as in the past the former six grades of the fetter of craving have been abandoned, so it is in the future. Although the latter three grades of the fetter of craving have not been abandoned, because they have not arisen, in the future they constitute binding, but not in the past. What is meant here is: If with respect to this matter there is a fetter of future craving that has not been abandoned, and there is also a fetter that arose previously that has not been abandoned, then with respect to this matter there is also the sense of being bound by the fetter of past craving. If with respect to this matter, although there is a fetter of future craving that has not been abandoned, yet previously with respect to this the fetter of craving did not arise—even though it arose elsewhere, with respect to this matter it is also called unarisen—or supposing it arose it has been abandoned, then with respect to this matter there is no sense of being bound by the fetter of past craving.' The above is the first clause; in truth the number of grades should be as explained before. However, the Vibhāṣā says: 'If having arisen it has not been abandoned and thus binds' speaking of nine grades, this is stated based on one who is fully bound. 'If previously it did not arise it does not bind' and 'those that arose have been abandoned and thus do not bind', these are both stated based on the abandonment of six grades. That corresponds to the fruit of a once-returner; this is based on the presence of binding, so it is not the fruit of a non-returner, etc. Because arising elsewhere is called not binding, it is not that they are already abandoned; because of abandonment, one is not fully bound. 'If previously it did not arise it does not bind' speaks of the latter three grades, based on the once-returner. 'Supposing it arose it has been abandoned it does not bind' speaks of the former six grades, which is also the once-returner. One should reflect further on this. 'If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also present [craving]? Answer: If it is currently present. Supposing there is present [craving], is there also past [craving]? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, etc. (and so forth, as before. The above is the second clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of future craving, is there also present [craving]? Answer: If it is currently present. Supposing there is present [craving], is there also future [craving]? Answer: Yes (the above is the third clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also future and present [craving]? Answer: The future definitely binds; the present [binds] if it is currently present. Supposing there is future and present [craving], is there also past [craving]? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, etc. (the above is the fourth clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of future craving, is there also past and present [craving]? Answer: Here there are four clauses (as appropriate). Supposing there is past and present [craving], is there also future [craving]? Answer: Yes (the above is the fifth clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of present craving, is there also past and future [craving]? Answer: The future definitely binds; the past [binds] if previously it arose and has not been abandoned, etc. Supposing there is past and future [craving], is there also present [craving]? Answer: If it is currently present (the above is the sixth clause). Just as the fetter of craving goes through the six, one should know that the fetters of hostility, pride, envy, stinginess, and non-universal ignorance also go through the six in the same way, because the meaning of fetters confused about self-characteristics is similar. Just as views go through the six, one should know that [view-]grasping, doubt, etc., going through the six are also like this, because the meaning of fetters confused about common characteristics is similar. Although there are differences of breadth and narrowness, they are of a similar kind (the above goes through the six clauses). If with respect to this matter there is past craving, is there also binding by the fetter of past hostility? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds, etc. Supposing there is binding by the fetter of past hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the first clause of the lesser seven)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetter of future hostility? Supposing there is binding by the fetter of future hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the second clause)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetter of present hostility? Supposing there is binding by the fetter of present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the third clause)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetters of past and present hostility (answer: here there are four clauses)? Supposing there is binding by the fetters of past and present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the fourth clause)? If with respect to this matter there is past craving, is there also future and present hostility (answer: here there are three clauses)? Supposing there is future and present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the fifth clause)? If with respect to this matter there is the fetter of past craving, is there also past and future hostility (answer: here there are three clauses)? Supposing there is past and future hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the sixth clause)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetters of past, future, and present hostility? Answer: Here there are five clauses. Supposing there is binding by the fetters of past, future, and present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the seventh clause)? Just as it is matched against the fetter of hostility, matching against the fetters of envy and stinginess is also like this. Matching craving against them forms the lesser seven clauses; just as there are the lesser seven, so there are the greater seven. The difference is: matching two against one, up to matching eight against one. That is, matching past craving and hostility first against past pride, next against future [pride], next against present [pride], next against past and present [pride], next against future and present [pride], next against past and future [pride], and again against past, future, and present [pride]. Question: What is the difference between one-line, traversing six, lesser seven, and greater seven? Answer: Furthermore, formulating questions and answers by matching dissimilar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas without determining by time period is called 'one-line'. Formulating questions and answers by matching similar dharmas against similar dharmas determined by time period is called 'traversing six'. Formulating questions and answers by matching dissimilar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas, determined by time period and matching one against one, is called 'lesser seven'. Formulating questions and answers by matching similar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas, determined by time period and matching two against one up to matching eight against one, is called 'greater seven'. This is the distinction. If they are common-characteristic defilements, they are not answered like this. Is it possible that what is bound by the fetter of past views is also [bound by] future [views]? Answer: Yes. Is it possible that what is bound by the fetter of future views is also [bound by] past [views]? Answer: Yes. This is asking about equals with equals, answered with an affirmative clause. If past and future are matched against the present, the past and future definitely bind, while the present binds if it arises.'