[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) › 6.25 # 俱舍論疏 6.25 俱舍論疏 6.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.25) 論「遍攝有為法如其所應」，明俱有因體也。一切有為皆有四相，能相、所相更互為因，理合遍攝一切有為。此中互為果言，謂同時因果。於中小相望其本法非互為果，本法與彼作俱有因，此即非互為果而為因也。准此，即是但互為果皆俱有因。有俱有因非互為果立互為果，因不遍宗法，此乃因狹於宗。《正理》彈云「又不應說唯互為果為俱有因，法與隨相非互為果，然為因故。此為因相彼應更辨，由此義故應辨相言。」有為法一果可為俱有因，此與《婆沙》義同。《婆沙》十六評家云「同一果義是俱有因。」今詳此因若是同時，還有其過。自體既非自體之果，如何俱有得一果耶？又大生、小生不同一果，如何得說一果因耶？此即一果之因不遍宗法，因狹於宗，與前無異。若謂異時，此即小相與其本法同一等流、同一異熟，因何不與本法為因？此即一果之因通其異品，於異品轉，其過更重。《正理》立因不異於前，因何彈斥《俱舍》自更立耶？又《入阿毘達磨》云「諸有為法更互為果，或同一果，名俱有因。」准此二因亦無勝劣。今詳兩論所立之因皆無有過。如說變礙名之為色，而立此因不遍無表。如說急食、急行名之為馬，而有非馬急食、急行，亦有是馬緩食、緩行。然此立名不違世現互為果及一果因，例亦如是。順正理師以違《婆沙》故從一果，《入阿毘達磨》將不違理遍舉二因，此論略故但舉其一。有人問答云：問：若依《婆沙》十六及一百五十竝云「一果者，離繫果。」《正理》復云「一果者，謂士用、離繫。」豈不相違？解云：《婆沙》唯說離繫果者，於此果中且據決定無濫者說；其士用果名寬不定，或是俱生、或無間等。《婆沙》亦應說士用果，而不說者，恐濫俱生展轉士用果，以自體望自體非一果故。《正理》所以說士用者，為攝一果中士用果盡，是故別說。各據一義，竝不相違。今詳《正理》說士用果者，以離繫果不攝不生士用果盡，非是欲攝餘有為法無間、隔越士用果也。等無間緣、無間士用及四大造色，同時無間、隔越士用，此等皆非此中一果，非是一果俱有因義。謂彼心、心所法及四大、生等，雖俱有因，非一果故。亦非前聚色引等，春農秋實之士用果。此等雖同一果，非俱有因。故准五事，論解心所法名相應中，有一解云：復次同一時分、同一所依、同一行相、同一所緣、同一果、同一等流、同一異熟，是相應義。准此論文，取等無間緣士用果者，皆是相應因；是相應者，皆同取等無間緣士用果，不同俱有因。然有無等無間緣士用果得相應，如羅漢後心。今詳此論所明一果，同其《婆沙》、不同《正理》，以依《婆沙》而造頌故。若有異端，應指陳所以。有人云亦同《正理》者，謬也。 > The commentary says: "It encompasses conditioned phenomena comprehensively as appropriate." This clarifies the entity of the coexistence cause. All conditioned phenomena possess the four characteristics; the characteristics and the phenomena possessing the characteristics are causes for one another, and in principle it should encompass all conditioned phenomena comprehensively. The words "mutually effects" here mean simultaneous causes and effects. Among them, the secondary characteristics relative to their fundamental phenomenon are not mutual effects, while the fundamental phenomenon serves as a coexistence cause for them; this is being a cause without being mutual effects. Following this, it means: only where they are mutual effects are they coexistence causes. When there are coexistence causes that are not mutual effects, positing "mutual effects" means the reason does not pervade the subject of the thesis—this is a reason that is narrower than the thesis. The Nyāyānusāra criticizes: "Furthermore, one should not say that only being mutual effects is a coexistence cause, for a phenomenon and its secondary characteristics are not mutual effects, yet they are causes. How this is a cause, they must analyze further; because of this point, one should analyze the statement of characteristics." Conditioned phenomena having a single effect can be a coexistence cause; this agrees in meaning with the Vibhāṣā. The arbitrator in Vibhāṣā fascicle 16 says: "The meaning of sharing a single effect is a coexistence cause." Now, analyzing this reason: if it is simultaneous, it still has its fault. Since the self-entity is not the effect of the self-entity, how could coexistent things obtain a single effect? Furthermore, major arising and minor arising do not share the same effect; how can it be stated to be the cause of a single effect? Thus this reason of a single effect does not pervade the subject of the thesis, the reason being narrower than the thesis, no different from the former. If it is said to be at different times, then the secondary characteristics share the same outflowing and the same fruition with their fundamental phenomenon; why are they not causes for the fundamental phenomenon? Thus this reason of a single effect extends to the dissimilar class, operating in the dissimilar class, and its fault is even graver. The reason posited by the Nyāyānusāra is no different from the former; why did it criticize the Kośa and independently posit another? Furthermore, the Abhidharmāvatāra states: "Conditioned phenomena being effects for one another, or sharing a single effect, is called a coexistence cause." Following this, neither of the two reasons is superior or inferior. Now, analyzing the reasons posited by both treatises, neither has any fault. Just as stating that change and obstruction is called matter posits a reason that does not pervade unmanifest matter; just as stating that rapid eating and rapid running is called a horse, yet there are non-horses that eat rapidly and run rapidly, and also horses that eat slowly and run slowly. Yet these designations do not contradict worldly reality; the reasons of mutual effects and a single effect are also like this. The master of the Nyāyānusāra followed "single effect" because \[the other\] contradicted the Vibhāṣā; the Abhidharmāvatāra, considering it not contrary to reason, comprehensively cited both reasons; this treatise, being brief, cited only one. Someone asked and answered: Question: If, relying on Vibhāṣā fascicles 16 and 150, which both state: "A single effect means the effect of disconnection," while the Nyāyānusāra further states: "A single effect means the virile effect and disconnection," are they not contradictory? The explanation says: That the Vibhāṣā mentions only the effect of disconnection is stated for the time being on the basis of what is definitive and devoid of ambiguity among these effects; the virile effect is broader and indefinite in name, being either simultaneously arisen, or immediately contiguous, etc. The Vibhāṣā should also have mentioned the virile effect; that it did not mention it was out of fear of confusing it with the reciprocal virile effect arisen simultaneously, because relative to self-entity, self-entity is not a single effect. The reason the Nyāyānusāra stated the virile effect was in order to exhaustively subsume the virile effect within a single effect; therefore it stated it separately. Each relies on one meaning, and neither is contradictory. Now, analyzing the Nyāyānusāra's statement of the virile effect: it is because the effect of disconnection does not exhaustively subsume the unarisen virile effect, not that it seeks to subsume the immediately contiguous or separated virile effects of other conditioned phenomena. The equal-and-immediate condition, the immediate virile effect, and the matter derived from the four primary elements—simultaneous, immediately contiguous, and separated virile effects—none of these are the single effect here, nor are they the meaning of the coexistence cause of a single effect. That is to say, although the mind, mental factors, primary elements, arising, and the like are coexistence causes, they do not share a single effect. Nor are they the virile effect like the spring plowing and autumn harvest of the previous collection of matter inducing \[the later\]. Although these share a single effect, they are not coexistence causes. Therefore, according to the treatise on the Five Matters, in explaining that mental factors are called "associated," one explanation states: "Furthermore, identical time, identical basis, identical aspect, identical object of focus, identical effect, identical outflowing, and identical fruition: this is the meaning of association." Following this textual passage, those that appropriate the virile effect of the equal-and-immediate condition are all association causes; those that are associated all jointly appropriate the virile effect of the equal-and-immediate condition, which is not the same as the coexistence cause. However, there are those devoid of the virile effect of the equal-and-immediate condition that obtain association, such as the final mind of an arhat. Now, analyzing the single effect clarified in this treatise: it agrees with the Vibhāṣā and differs from the Nyāyānusāra, because the verses were composed relying on the Vibhāṣā. If there were divergent points, the reasons should have been pointed out. That someone claims it also agrees with the Nyāyānusāra is mistaken. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.24) - [Next: 6.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.26) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.6.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.6.25) · Pramāṇa