俱舍論疏 8.15

8.15

論「迦濕彌羅至四眾圍繞」，此第三也。說色界有十六處者，是《婆沙》義。此師意說：梵王、梵輔不分二處，無想、廣果合立一處，故成十六。《正理論》云「此十七處諸器世間并諸有情，總名色界。有餘別說十七處名，初靜慮中總立二處，第四靜慮別說無想。彼師應言處有十八，以彼大梵望梵輔天，壽量、身量、無尋、受等皆有別故。豈不無想望廣果天，唯異生等有差別故，前亦應言處有十八。此難非理。無想天生，即廣果天繫業果故。若爾，大梵所受生身，亦梵輔天繫業果故，不應別說為一天處。即梵輔天上品繫業招大梵果，此業望彼少有差別，故招壽等亦少不同。若大梵天望彼梵輔壽量等別合為一處，則少光等壽量雖殊應合一處，成大過失。此例不然。大梵一故，要依同分立天處名，非一梵王可名同分。雖壽量等與餘不同，然由一身不成同分，故與梵輔合立一天，高下雖殊然地無別。少光天等與此相違，故彼不應引之為例。」准此論文，《正理》亦以十六為正。梵王、無想皆唯一故，地無別故。上坐色處立十八天。

The Śāstra says: "The Kaśmīra ... surrounded by four assemblies." This is the third. Stating that the form realm has sixteen places is the doctrine of the *Vibhāṣā*. The intention of this master is: the Brahmā King and Brahma's Priests are not divided into two places, and the Non-conceptual [Heaven] and Vast Fruition are combined into one place; therefore, they make sixteen. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "These seventeen places, including their vessel worlds and sentient beings, are collectively called the form realm. Other [masters] separately state the names of seventeen places, establishing two places in the First Dhyāna and separately stating the Non-conceptual [Heaven] in the Fourth Dhyāna. Those masters ought to say that there are eighteen places, because when comparing Mahābrahmā to the Brahmapurohita Heaven, lifespan, bodily size, freedom from vitarka, feeling, etc., are all different. Would one not say that, since the Non-conceptual [Heaven] differs from the Vast Fruition Heaven only in being [inhabited exclusively by] ordinary beings, etc., the former should also be said to have eighteen places? This objection is unreasonable. Rebirth in the Non-conceptual Heaven is precisely the fruition of karma bound to the Vast Fruition Heaven. If so, the body born as Mahābrahmā is also the fruition of karma bound to the Brahmapurohita Heaven, so it should not be separately stated as an independent heavenly place. It is precisely the superior karma bound to the Brahmapurohita Heaven that brings about the fruition of Mahābrahmā; this karma differs slightly from that one, and so the lifespan and so on that it brings about are also slightly different. If, because the lifespan and so on of the Mahābrahmā Heaven differ from those of Brahmapurohita, they were combined into one place, then although the lifespans of Parīttābha and so on differ, they too should be combined into one place, which would lead to a great fallacy. This analogy does not hold. Because Mahābrahmā is single, the name of a heavenly place must be established based on a nikāya-sabhāga (group-homogeneity), and a single Brahmā King cannot be called a nikāya-sabhāga. Although his lifespan and so on differ from the rest, because a single body does not constitute a nikāya-sabhāga, he is combined with Brahmapurohita into one heaven; although higher and lower differ, their ground does not differ. The Parīttābha Heaven and so on are contrary to this, so he should not cite them as an analogy." Based on this text, the *Nyāyānusāra* also takes sixteen as correct. Because the Brahmā King and the Non-conceptual [Heaven] are each unique, and their grounds do not differ. The Sthaviras establish eighteen heavens for the places of form.