[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822) › 4.187 # 俱舍論疏 4.187 俱舍論疏 4.187 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.187](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.187) 「論曰至不相應行」，「如是諸法」者，總舉不相應法。「心不相應」者，簡心、心所。「非色等性行蘊所攝者」，簡色及無為法。「是故名心不相應行」，略結名也。廣應言非色非心不相應行，今但言不相應行，亦得簡諸法盡。言不相應，簡一切心、心所；言行，行是行蘊，簡色、無為。由此諸論多存略名。有人自釋頌云：等謂等取句身、文身。類謂流類，即是得等。今案此論，心不相應但有十四。若依《正理》，加和合性。故《正理》云「等者等取句身、文身及和合性。」詳光師以二說不同，廣為問答。此論雖不別說和合，亦不述無。《正理》釋此論頌言等和合，故知不是兩論相違。若謂不說即是無者，此論頌中不說怖等，應無其怖。怖等既不定無，和合寧知非有？今詳此論只是略而不論，非是所明之外更無心所。心所既爾，和合應同。不依論文，信自胸襟問答往還，徒煩紙墨。自云《品類足論》不說非得，說有十三，同《俱舍論》。又云：彼論云「復有所餘如是類法與心不相應。」《法蘊足論》第十同《品類足》。彼論既言所餘如是類法，焉知唯有非得？此論不說更無，《正理》不彈《俱舍》。六足言有所餘，《正理》說有和合。餘文皆通兩解，《正理》更無異端。教既分明，理須依釋，故知十四之外更有不相應行。《婆沙》說言類者，顯是餘師所計度法。《正理》云類者，顯餘所計度法，即前種類，謂有計度離得等有蘊得等性。與《婆沙》少同也。 > Regarding "The commentary says... conditioning forces disassociated from mind": "Such dharmas" generally presents the disassociated dharmas. "Disassociated from mind" excludes mind and mental factors. "Not having the nature of form, etc., and subsumed under the saṃskāra-skandha" excludes form and unconditioned dharmas. "Therefore they are called conditioning forces disassociated from mind" briefly concludes their name. In full, one should say "conditioning forces disassociated \[from mind\], being neither form nor mind"; here, merely saying "conditioning forces disassociated \[from mind\]" can also exclude all dharmas completely. Saying "disassociated" excludes all minds and mental factors; saying "conditioning forces" (saṃskāra) refers to the saṃskāra-skandha, excluding form and the unconditioned. Because of this, various treatises mostly preserve the abbreviated name. Someone explained the verse themselves, saying: "'Etc.' means including the collection of phrases (padakāya) and the collection of syllables (vyañjanakāya); 'class' means category, which is acquisition (prāpti) and so forth." Now, examining this treatise, there are only fourteen conditioning forces disassociated from mind. If according to the Nyāyānusāra, the nature of concordance (sāmagrī) is added; therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "'Etc.' includes the collection of phrases, the collection of syllables, and the nature of concordance." Examining Master Guang's extensive questions and answers regarding the two different views: although this treatise does not specifically mention concordance, neither does it state that it is nonexistent. The Nyāyānusāra explains this treatise's verse as including concordance; hence we know that the two treatises are not in conflict. If one considers that what is not stated is nonexistent, then since fear and so forth are not stated in this treatise's verse, there should be no fear. Since fear and so forth are not definitively nonexistent, how can one know that concordance does not exist? Now examining this treatise, it merely abbreviates and does not discuss it; it is not that beyond what is explained there are no other mental factors. Since mental factors are like this, concordance should be the same. Not relying on the treatise text, but trusting one's own subjective mind in back-and-forth debate, is merely wasting paper and ink. He himself says that the Prakaraṇapāda does not mention non-acquisition (aprāpti) and states that there are thirteen, agreeing with the Abhidharmakośa. He also says: That treatise states, "There are further remaining dharmas of such kind that are disassociated from mind." Fascicle 10 of the Dharmaskandha agrees with the Prakaraṇapāda. Since that treatise says "remaining dharmas of such kind," how does one know there is only non-acquisition? This treatise does not state that there are no others, and the Nyāyānusāra does not criticize the Abhidharmakośa. The Six Pādas state that there are remaining ones, and the Nyāyānusāra states that there is concordance. Other passages can all admit both explanations, and the Nyāyānusāra contains no other contradictions. Since the scriptural teaching is clear and reasoning demands explaining it accordingly, we know that beyond the fourteen there are further disassociated conditioning forces. The Vibhāṣā says that "class" indicates dharmas posited by other masters. The Nyāyānusāra says that "class" indicates dharmas posited by others, which are the aforesaid categories, meaning there are those who posit natures such as skandha-acquisition separate from acquisition and so forth. This slightly agrees with the Vibhāṣā. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.186](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.186) - [Next: 4.188](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.188) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.4.187) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.178) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.187](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.187) · Pramāṇa