俱舍論疏 9.92

9.92

「論曰至總謂王行」，此第一無明體也。言「煩惱位」者，即取煩惱起時五蘊為體，非唯煩惱。故《婆沙》云「五支心、心所法是染污，餘染、不染故。五支者，謂無明、識、愛、取、生支。」若據此文云「彼與無明俱時行故」，即是總取諸蘊。「由無明力彼現行故至總謂王行」者，即是偏說染心、心所。此是染心、心所總名無明，自餘二蘊相從為名。《正理論》云「何故無明聲總說煩惱？與牽後有行為定因故。業由惑發，能牽後有。無惑有業，後有無故。非牽後有諸行生時，貪等於中皆有作用，彼行起位定賴無明，故無明聲總說煩惱。」若爾，何故唯前生惑總謂無明，此生不爾？問也。唯前生惑似無明故，貪等煩惱未得果時，勢用無虧說為明利。若得果已，取與用虧不名明利。無明勢力設未虧損亦非明利，彼現行時亦難知故。前生諸惑至於今生已得果故，勢力虧損其相不明，似無明品，故唯前世惑可說無明聲。非於行中亦應同此說，假立名想唯於同類故。然經主說：彼與無明俱時行故，由無明力彼現行故，如說王行非無導從，王俱勝故總謂王行（已上《俱舍》文。已下《正理》破）。未了此中俱時行義，為諸煩惱隨從無明？為說無明隨從煩惱？若取前義，理必不然，餘惑相應無明劣故，勝隨從劣，理必不成。若取後義，應無明體從彼為名，隨從彼故。非不隨從此，可從此為名。若謂此彼互相隨從，無差別故，非決定因而偏立名，豈令生喜？又由無明力彼現行故者，為約能轉無明而說？為約隨轉無明而說？如是二途並非應理。無明亦因貪等轉故，與餘相應非自在故，非不自在可說力強。但應說無明由貪等力起，於彼相應品貪等力強故。如不可說導從勝王，如何說貪等由無明力起？是故二因皆無證也。准前所說，其理為勝。

The Śāstra says: "… collectively called the king's procession." This is the first: the nature of ignorance. Saying "the stage of afflictions" means taking the five skandhas at the time the afflictions arise as the nature, not merely the afflictions alone. Therefore the Vibhāṣā says: "The mental and mental derivative dharmas of five links are defiled, while the rest are defiled or undefiled. The five links are ignorance, consciousness, craving, grasping, and the link of birth." If we follow this text stating, "Because they operate together with ignorance," that is taking all skandhas collectively. When it says, "Because they become manifest through the power of ignorance … it is collectively called the king's procession," it specifically refers to defiled mind and mental derivatives. This means that defiled mind and mental derivatives are collectively called ignorance, and the remaining two skandhas derive their name by association. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Why does the term 'ignorance' refer collectively to the afflictions? Because it is the determinate cause that pulls karmic formations into future existence. Karma is instigated by afflictions and is able to pull toward future existence; if there were no afflictions but there were karma, future existence would not occur. It is not that when all karmic formations pulling future existence arise, attachment and the rest all have function therein; at the stage where those karmic formations arise, they definitely depend on ignorance; therefore the term 'ignorance' refers collectively to the afflictions." If so, why are only the afflictions of a prior life collectively called ignorance, while those of this life are not so? This is a question. Only the afflictions of a prior life resemble ignorance, because before afflictions such as attachment obtain their fruit, their power and function are unimpaired and are said to be clear and sharp. Once they have obtained their fruit, their function of grasping and giving is impaired, and they are not called clear and sharp. Even when the power of ignorance has not yet been impaired, it is still not clear and sharp, because when it is manifest it is also difficult to discern. Since all afflictions of the prior life have already obtained their fruit in the present life, their power is impaired, their characteristics are unclear, and they resemble the category of ignorance; therefore only the afflictions of a prior lifetime can be designated by the term 'ignorance'. It is not that this should also be said identically in the case of karmic formations, because metaphorical designations are applied only to those of the same category. However, the author of the Śāstra says: 'Because they operate together with ignorance, and because they become manifest through the power of ignorance, just as when it is said that the king marches, it does not mean there is no retinue, yet because the king is preeminent, it is collectively called the king's procession' (the above is the text of the Abhidharmakośa; below is the refutation in the Nyāyānusāra). We do not understand the meaning of 'operating together' here: does it mean that the other afflictions follow ignorance, or that ignorance follows the other afflictions? If one takes the former meaning, in principle it cannot be so, because the ignorance associated with other afflictions is inferior; that the superior should follow the inferior cannot hold in principle. If one takes the latter meaning, the entity of ignorance should derive its name from them, because it follows them. It is not the case that what does not follow this can derive its name from this. If it is said that they mutually follow each other, because there is no difference, designating the name based on one side without a determinate cause—how could this give rise to satisfaction? Furthermore, regarding 'because they become manifest through the power of ignorance', is this said with reference to the ignorance that is able to direct, or with reference to the ignorance that conforms and follows? Both alternatives are unreasonable. Ignorance also operates due to attachment and the rest, and because it is associated with others, it is not autonomous; what is not autonomous cannot be said to have strong power. One should only say that ignorance arises through the power of attachment and the rest, because among the dharmas associated with it, the power of attachment and the rest is strong. Just as one cannot say the retinue surpasses the king, how can one say attachment and the rest arise through the power of ignorance? Therefore, neither of the two reasons provides proof. Based on what was said earlier, that reasoning is superior.