俱舍論疏 5.266

5.266

論「又名身等至非所顯義」，第二情、非情分別也。《婆沙》五十云「問：誰成就名等？為能說者、為所說耶？設爾何失？若能說者，則阿羅漢應成染污法等，以阿羅漢等亦說染污法故。若所說者，則外事無為亦應成就名等，以彼亦是所說法故。答：唯能說者成就名等。問：若爾，後難善通，前難云何通？答：阿羅漢等雖成就染污等名，而不成就染污等法，以染污等名皆是無覆無記法故。」十五又云「問：名等為善、不善、無記耶？答：無記，非造業者故思起故，如四大種。」已上論文。然發業時，近因等起唯緣於聲，遠因等起亦通緣名，不從遠因判性。餘處說業、心二緣名者，據遠而說。

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, name-collections and so forth ... not the meaning expressed": this is the second section, distinguishing between sentient and non-sentient. Fascicle fifty of the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: Who possesses names and so forth? Is it the speaker, or what is spoken? What fault would there be in either case? If it were the speaker, then an arhat should possess defiled dharmas and so forth, because arhats and others also speak of defiled dharmas. If it were what is spoken, then external objects and unconditioned dharmas should also possess names and so forth, because they too are dharmas spoken of. Answer: Only the speaker possesses names and so forth. Question: If so, the latter objection is well resolved, but how does one resolve the former objection? Answer: Although arhats and others possess the names of defiled dharmas and so forth, they do not possess defiled dharmas themselves, because defiled names and so forth are all non-obscured neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta) dharmas." Fascicle fifteen also says: "Question: Are names and so forth wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral? Answer: They are neutral, because they are not produced by the deliberate intention of the agent of karma, just like the four great elements." Such is the text above. Yet when karma is instigated, the immediate motivating cause takes only sound as its object, while the distant motivating cause may also take names as its object; nature is not determined by the distant cause. Where other passages state that karma and mind both cognize names, they are speaking in terms of the distant [cause].