俱舍論疏 6.71

6.71

論「有餘師說至皆不為因」，第四釋也。此師意：以四蘊、色蘊雖同無記，力劣異類，不互為因。四說不同，既無評文，何為正說？答曰：應言前說為善，同善、染故。善、染性中，既色、四蘊展轉為因，因何無記業色不與四蘊展轉為因？違二性例。破第二師云：善心發善色，善色亦善四因。無記發無記，因何四蘊非色因？破第三師云：同類因法劣為勝因，因何色劣非四蘊因？破第四師云：善五蘊等色、心有異，展轉為因。無記色、心因何相望總不成因？有人誤解《婆沙》，妄斷後說為正，云：諸論皆有四說，竝無評家。今解：且以後師為正。故《婆沙》一百三十一云「大種與意處為幾緣？答所緣、增上。意處與大種為幾緣？答：因、增上。因者一因，謂異熟因。增上者，如前說。」解云：無記四大既望意處展轉相望，不言有同類因。以此准知，無記色蘊望無記四蘊展轉相望，非同類因。今詳此釋未善其宗。言無記五蘊展轉為因者，豈說一切色蘊皆展轉為因耶？此說展轉為因者，謂無記業色與四為因，非異熟生及所長養。《婆沙》既云四大，此非業色，如何成證？又論先敘正義與善、染同，後述異師三說不定，因何將異師說破其本宗？

On the Śāstra's statement: "Other masters say... neither serves as cause": this is the fourth explanation. This master's intention is: although the four aggregates and the aggregate of matter are equally unspecified, their power is weak and they are of different categories, so they do not serve mutually as causes. With four differing explanations and no critical assessment in the text, which is the correct view? The answer is: one should state that the first explanation is good, because it is identical to the wholesome and defiled. Within the natures of wholesome and defiled, since matter and the four aggregates serve mutually as causes, why would unspecified karmic matter not serve mutually as a cause with the four aggregates? [To say otherwise] would violate the precedent of the two natures. In refuting the second master: wholesome mind generates wholesome matter, and wholesome matter is also the cause of the four wholesome [aggregates]; unspecified [mind] generates unspecified [matter], so why would the four aggregates not be the cause of matter? In refuting the third master: in the phenomenon of homogeneous cause, an inferior [phenomenon] can be the cause of a superior one, so why should matter, being inferior, not be the cause of the four aggregates? In refuting the fourth master: in the wholesome five aggregates and so on, although matter and mind differ, they serve mutually as causes; why would unspecified matter and mind, in relation to each other, fail completely to constitute causes? Someone misunderstood the Vibhāṣā and erroneously judged the last explanation to be correct, saying: 'All treatises contain four explanations, none having a critical arbiter; we now interpret that the last master's view should be provisionally taken as correct.' Thus the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 131, says: 'How many conditions do the primary elements serve for the mental base? Answer: objective support and predominant [conditions]. How many conditions does the mental base serve for the primary elements? Answer: causal and predominant [conditions]. As for causal, there is one cause, namely the maturation cause. As for predominant, it is as stated before.' He interprets this as: since the unspecified four great elements and the mental base, in relation to each other, are not said to have a homogeneous cause, from this we know by analogy that the unspecified aggregate of matter and the unspecified four aggregates, in relation to each other, are not homogeneous causes. We now examine this explanation and find it does not grasp its school's tenets. When saying that the unspecified five aggregates serve mutually as causes, does one mean that all aggregates of matter serve mutually as causes? Saying that they serve mutually as causes refers to unspecified karmic matter serving as a cause for the four, not to those born of maturation or accumulated through nourishment. Since the Vibhāṣā mentions the four great elements, which are not karmic matter, how can this serve as proof? Moreover, the Śāstra first sets forth the correct doctrine as identical to the wholesome and defiled, and only later recounts the indeterminate three views of differing masters; why should one use the views of differing masters to overturn its foundational tenets?