俱舍論疏 27.135

27.135

論「他心智通至一切境故」，明他心、宿住、漏盡三通念住攝也。准此論文，宿住通別緣色、受、心，許有四念住故。宿住既爾，眷屬死生智通故知亦爾。《正理論》云「經主欲令一一皆通四念住攝，通緣五蘊一切境故。而實宿住，法念住攝。雖契經說念曾領受苦、樂等事，是憶前生苦、樂等受所領眾具，即是雜緣法念住攝。」《婆沙》評家云「應作是說：念過去世諸樂、苦具，名受樂、苦，非但緣受。故彼非證。然宿住隨念智，總觀前生分位差別，唯是雜緣法念住攝。」兩論與此論別，意各異故。如見道中雖總緣諦，而得修者亦四念住。此亦應爾，各據一義亦不相違。漏盡如力，或法、或四，不應定言四念住攝。

The Śāstra states: "The supernormal power of knowing others' minds … because they range over all objects." This explains that the three supernormal powers—knowing others' minds, recollection of past lives, and destruction of the outflows—are subsumed under the foundations of mindfulness. According to this text of the Śāstra, since the supernormal power of recollecting past lives separately takes form, sensation, and mind as its objects, it is accepted as having four foundations of mindfulness. Past lives being so, it is known that its retinue, the supernormal power of the knowledge of death and rebirth, is also like this. The Nyāyānusāra says: "The author of the Śāstra wishes each and every one of them to be subsumed under the four foundations of mindfulness, because they supernormally take all objects of the five skandhas as their domain. In reality, however, [the supernormal power of] past lives is subsumed under the foundation of mindfulness focused on dharmas. Although the sūtras say that one recalls having experienced painful, pleasant, and other events, this is recalling the various requisites through which painful, pleasant, and other sensations were experienced in former lives; hence it is subsumed under the foundation of mindfulness focused on mixed dharmas." The reviewer in the Vibhāṣā says: "It should be stated thus: recalling the pleasant and painful requisites of past lives is called 'experiencing pleasure and pain', but it does not take only sensation as its object. Therefore that is not proof. However, the knowledge following memory of past lives comprehensively contemplates the differentiated stages of past lives, and is exclusively subsumed under the foundation of mindfulness focused on mixed dharmas." The two treatises differ from this treatise because their intentions are distinct. Just as in the path of vision, although one comprehensively takes the truths as object, those which are obtained through cultivation are also four foundations of mindfulness. This too should be like that; each relies on a particular aspect, so they do not contradict one another. The destruction of outflows is like the powers: it is either dharmas or all four, and one should not definitively state that it is subsumed under all four foundations of mindfulness.