俱舍論疏 8.32

8.32

論「是則還同至唯互相依」，兩關釋也。同心相續難者，謂同前難。故前難云：若爾，於彼心等相續但依勝定，何用別依？第二關云：無色心、心所法從勝定生，即應心、心所法更互相依，何須更依命根、眾同分？《正理論》意，唯有六根能為所依，餘非所依，但俱生依由此六識。欲、色界中用四蘊為俱生依性，無色意識無復色依，彼俱生依但通三蘊。若爾，何故但言無色心等依於同分及命？此說定同無亂依故。謂心、心所雖互為依而非定同，不自依故亦非無亂。在此地生，亂起自他心、心所故。同分及命心等同依，又此地生唯此地故，依此設起不同地心，由此還令自地心起，唯依此二名此地生，牽引業生無間斷故。准此文證，命根即是引業果也，由斯說是同不亂依。心等不然，故略不說。若無此二，餘地四蘊現在前時，爾時有情應名餘地。乃至如欲、色界，身同分、命為心等依，雖或有時異地心起，而依身等。於此生中，後定當牽自地心起。如是無色雖無有身，心等定依同分及命。故頌偏說同分、命根，此是牽引業異熟故。

The Śāstra says: "Then it is just the same as ... only mutually rely on each other." This explains through two alternatives. 'The objection regarding the continuum of mind' refers to the previous objection. Thus the previous objection said: If so, in that realm the continuum of mind and so forth merely relies on superior concentration, so what need is there for a separate basis? The second alternative says: Since formless mind and mental factors arise from superior concentration, then mind and mental factors should mutually rely on each other; why must they additionally rely on the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga? The intention of the *Nyāyānusāra* is that only the six sense faculties can act as bases of support; the rest cannot act as bases of support, but are only co-arising supports by virtue of these six consciousnesses. In the desire and form realms, the four skandhas serve as the nature of co-arising supports; in the formless realm, mental consciousness no longer has a form-support, and its co-arising supports extend only to three skandhas. If so, why is it only said that formless mind and so forth rely on sabhāga and life[-faculty]? This is said because they are definitely identical and nondisorderly supports. That is, although mind and mental factors mutually support one another, they are not definitely identical, because they do not rely on themselves, nor are they nondisorderly. Born in this ground, minds and mental factors of self and other disorderly arise. Sabhāga and life[-faculty] are the common support of mind and so forth; furthermore, being born in this ground belongs exclusively to this ground. Even if a mind of a different ground arises based on them, due to them a mind of its own ground is brought to arise again; relying solely on these two is one called born in this ground, because they are produced without interruption by the projecting karma. Verified by this text, the life-faculty is precisely the fruition of projecting karma; therefore, they are spoken of as identical, nondisorderly supports. Mind and so forth are not so, and thus are omitted from the statement. If these two did not exist, when the four skandhas of another ground were present, that sentient being should at that time be called [belonging to] another ground. And further, just as in the desire and form realms, bodily sabhāga and life[-faculty] serve as the support for mind and so forth, so that even though a mind of a different ground might sometimes arise, it relies on the body and so forth, and within this life it will definitely project the arising of a mind of its own ground later; so too in the formless realm, although there is no body, mind and so forth definitely rely on sabhāga and life[-faculty]. Therefore, the verse speaks specifically of sabhāga and the life-faculty, because these are the vipāka of projecting karma.