俱舍論疏 3.153

3.153

論「上唯命者至唯命非餘」，釋無色界。頌中上言，以定勝生勝故，非是在欲、色界之上，無別處故。餘文可解。《正理論》云「由此證知命根實有。此若非有，為得何根名生無色？非善、染污名業果生，未受彼生容現起故。又異熟心無續生理，唯許染心能續生故。過去未來非有論者，爾時三世異熟皆無。異熟既無，生依何說？必應許有生依實法（大乘有賴耶即無過。經部有過）。」《婆沙》一百四十七云「問：餘無色根爾時亦得，謂意、五受、信等五根，此中何故不說，答：有說。爾時一切得者，此中即說。餘無色根雖有得者，而非一切，是故不說。謂上地沒生下地時，雖得彼根；若自地沒還生自地，彼皆不得，是故不說。」述曰：此說先不成就，今之得者名得。若自地沒還生自地，先成就故不名為得。從下地沒生上地時，爾時善、染亦先成就，唯異熟根無法前得。彼彼生處初獲名得。問：若言雖同欲界，以報別故，此無記根名初得者，何故得識不得眼？云「如從二、三、四定沒生初靜慮及欲界時，但得其識不得其眼，而於前身已得眼故。」答：前文據十八界作論。彼於眼界總說，不簡異界、異地及業果別。此中辨異熟根，就業果說。雖於同地先成眼，業果不同名之為得。又說：此中但問初得業所生者。初受生位，餘無色根雖有得者，而非業生，故此不說。後位所得雖業所生，而非初得，故此不說。此論意與後文同也。

The commentary states: "Above, only life [...] only life and not the others." This explains the formless realm. The word 'above' in the verse means superior in concentration and superior in birth; it does not mean being spatially above the desire and form realms, as there is no separate location. The rest of the text is understandable. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "By this it is proven that the life faculty is a real entity. If this did not exist, upon acquiring which faculty would one be said to be born in the formless? Wholesome and defiled ones are not called karmic maturation births, because they may arise manifestly before that birth has been experienced. Furthermore, a maturation mind has no principle of connecting rebirth, since only a defiled mind is admitted as capable of connecting rebirth. For those who assert that past and future do not exist, at that time maturation across the three times is entirely absent. Since maturation is absent, upon what is birth said to be based? One must accept that there is a real dharma upon which birth is based (the Mahāyāna has the ālaya[-vijñāna] and thus is free from error; the Sautrāntika has an error)." The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 147, says: "Question: The remaining formless faculties are also acquired at that time—namely, the mind, the five feelings, and the five faculties of faith, etc.—why are they not mentioned here? Answer: Some say that whatever is acquired by all at that time is mentioned here. Although the remaining formless faculties are acquired by some, they are not acquired by all; therefore they are not mentioned. That is, when dying from a higher plane to be born into a lower plane, one does acquire those faculties; but if dying from one's own plane to be reborn back into one's own plane, none of those are acquired, and therefore they are not mentioned." The commentary states: This means that what was previously not possessed, when now acquired, is called 'acquisition'. If dying from one's own plane to be reborn into one's own plane, because they were previously possessed, it is not called 'acquisition'. When dying from a lower plane to be born into a higher plane, at that time wholesome and defiled ones are also already previously possessed; only the maturation faculties have no acquisition prior to the dharma. Being first obtained in those respective birthplaces is called 'acquisition'. Question: If it is said that although being in the same desire realm, because the rewards differ, this neutral faculty is called 'initially acquired', why is consciousness acquired but the eye is not acquired? It says: "Just as when dying from the second, third, or fourth dhyāna to be born into the first dhyāna and the desire realm, one only acquires its consciousness and does not acquire its eye, because in the previous existence one had already acquired the eye." Answer: The previous text formulated its discussion on the basis of the eighteen elements. There, it spoke generally of the eye element, without differentiating between different realms, different planes, and differences in karmic fruition. Here, in discerning the maturation faculties, it speaks in terms of karmic fruition. Although the eye was previously possessed in the same plane, because the karmic fruitions differ, it is called 'acquisition'. Moreover, it is said: here it only inquires about what is initially acquired as karma-produced. In the state of initial taking of rebirth, although the other formless faculties are acquired by some, they are not karma-produced, and therefore are not mentioned here. What is acquired in later stages, although karma-produced, is not initially acquired, and therefore is not mentioned here. The meaning of this treatise agrees with the latter text.