俱舍論疏 20.7

20.7

The śāstra says, 'The [defilements associated with the] future five consciousnesses... can also bind the three time periods.' This explains the defilements associated with the five consciousnesses. If they have already arisen, they immediately bind; in this regard, the mental [consciousness] and the five [consciousnesses] are identical, so they are not mentioned separately. Greedy desire, etc., associated with the mental consciousness, whether arisen or unarisen, are all capable of universally traversing the dharmas of the three time periods. Those associated with the five consciousnesses, when arisen, [bind] only their own time period, whereas when unarisen, they pervade all three, which is why they are explained separately. As for the unarisen pervading the three, this is because the basis and object of the five consciousnesses must be simultaneous. When they arise, they must be simultaneous, but when unarisen, their objective realms can admit the three time periods, because objects such as visible forms move through the three time periods without depending on consciousness. If consciousness arises, it necessarily depends on the object, so although the time periods differ, their intrinsic binding is fixed. Among them there are two [aspects]: either causing the cognitive object to pass through its three time periods, or with respect to a single cognitive object, irregularly demarcating its three time periods. Now one should point to an actual matter to formulate this question and answer. Question: Is it possible that with respect to this one matter of visible form—this merely pointing to this matter without asking about the three time periods—the greedy desire, etc., of the three time periods in this matter binds or does not bind with respect to this matter? Answer: Past and present greedy desire, anger, pride, etc., which arose taking this matter as an object, bind it as long as they are not yet abandoned. If past and present greedy desire, anger, pride, etc., arose taking other dharmas as objects, they do not bind this matter. And even though they arose taking this one matter of visible form as an object, if they have been abandoned by the path of antidotes, they do not bind it. Of binding there is one kind: following what has already arisen and is not abandoned. Of non-binding there are two classes: namely, not having arisen taking this as an object, and having taken it as an object but having been abandoned. This applies across all six consciousnesses; self-characteristic defilements are all identical to this. If they are in the future, there is a difference: those associated with the mental consciousness definitely bind this matter, because in the future there must be numerous [moments of] greedy desire, etc., whose fixed nature regarding their cognitive objects binds this. Therefore, in the future, both arisen and unarisen have universal traversal; both arisen and unarisen bind this one matter of visible form. As for those associated with eye-consciousness, those that are capable of arising are called binding their own time period and are not called universally traversing. Those that do not arise definitely have one class that binds this matter. Because within the same objective realm of visible form at a single moment there must be numerous consciousnesses in general and in particular, among these numerous consciousnesses only one manages to arise while the rest do not arise. There is no single matter of visible form in the past or present that is not bound by the numerous unarisen [moments of] greedy desire, etc., associated with future eye-consciousness; because of this, the unarisen is called universally traversing. Views, doubt, and ignorance in the past and future definitely bind this one matter, because in both time periods they universally traverse. Regarding those that currently arise: if they take it as an object, they bind it; if they do not take it as an object, they do not bind it. Hence the Vibhāṣā, formulating questions and answers by going through six clauses and so on, says: 'With respect to this matter, is it possible that it is bound by the fetter of past craving and also bound by the fetter of future craving? That it is bound by the fetter of future craving, and also bound by the fetter of past craving? This should be answered by conforming to the previous clause.' Thus, wherever there is binding by the fetter of past craving, there must also be binding by the fetter of future craving. The reason it is called 'conforming to the previous clause' is that one goes through six clauses. In every single clause there are two question-and-answer pairs; this is identical to the previous clause, hence it is called 'conforming to the previous clause', and is also called 'answering in conformity with the previous clause'. The second clause: 'The question asks: Is it possible that it is bound by the fetter of future craving, and also bound by the fetter of past craving? The answer says: If previously it did not arise, or if having arisen it has been abandoned, then it does not bind. If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, then it binds.' These words 'abandoned' and 'not abandoned' are not stated with respect to the future as equal grades. Craving has three grades; with respect to this one matter of visible form there can be three grades of craving: not arising taking this one matter of visible form as an object but arising taking other matters as objects. Arising taking other matters as objects, these three grades of craving all do not bind this one matter of visible form. If previously it did not arise and does not bind, in principle this must apply across all three grades. If having previously arisen it has been abandoned and does not bind, among the three grades this is either the superior grade, the middling grade, or the superior and middling spoken together; it certainly cannot be the inferior grade, because it has already been said that the future binds, and the abandonment of defilements must be abandoned simultaneously across the three time periods. If the inferior grade in the past period is abandoned, all three grades in the future are abandoned, and one could not say that there is binding by the fetter of future craving. The principle is definitely as stated above. If previously it arose and has not been abandoned and thus binds, this also applies across the three grades; in principle it must be so. Vibhāṣā fascicle 58, going through six questions, says: 'If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also [binding by] future [craving]? Answer: Yes. Supposing there is future [craving], is there also past [craving]? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, it binds. If previously it did not arise, or supposing it arose it has been abandoned, it does not bind. Question: When the fetter of past craving has already been abandoned, at that very time the fetter of future craving has also already been abandoned. When the fetter of past craving has not been abandoned, at that very time the fetter of future craving has also not been abandoned. Now why do you say that if previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds, but if previously it did not arise, or supposing it arose it has been abandoned, it does not bind? The foreign masters spoke thus: "If previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds" refers to the middle three grades of fetters. "If previously it did not arise it does not bind" refers to the lower three grades of fetters. "Supposing it arose it has been abandoned it does not bind" refers to the upper three grades of fetters. The masters of the Kaśmīra country say: "If previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds" refers to the nine grades of fetters. "If previously it did not arise it does not bind" refers to the latter three grades of fetters. "Supposing it arose it has been abandoned it does not bind" refers to the former six grades of fetters. Just as in the past the former six grades of the fetter of craving have been abandoned, so it is in the future. Although the latter three grades of the fetter of craving have not been abandoned, because they have not arisen, in the future they constitute binding, but not in the past. What is meant here is: If with respect to this matter there is a fetter of future craving that has not been abandoned, and there is also a fetter that arose previously that has not been abandoned, then with respect to this matter there is also the sense of being bound by the fetter of past craving. If with respect to this matter, although there is a fetter of future craving that has not been abandoned, yet previously with respect to this the fetter of craving did not arise—even though it arose elsewhere, with respect to this matter it is also called unarisen—or supposing it arose it has been abandoned, then with respect to this matter there is no sense of being bound by the fetter of past craving.' The above is the first clause; in truth the number of grades should be as explained before. However, the Vibhāṣā says: 'If having arisen it has not been abandoned and thus binds' speaking of nine grades, this is stated based on one who is fully bound. 'If previously it did not arise it does not bind' and 'those that arose have been abandoned and thus do not bind', these are both stated based on the abandonment of six grades. That corresponds to the fruit of a once-returner; this is based on the presence of binding, so it is not the fruit of a non-returner, etc. Because arising elsewhere is called not binding, it is not that they are already abandoned; because of abandonment, one is not fully bound. 'If previously it did not arise it does not bind' speaks of the latter three grades, based on the once-returner. 'Supposing it arose it has been abandoned it does not bind' speaks of the former six grades, which is also the once-returner. One should reflect further on this. 'If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also present [craving]? Answer: If it is currently present. Supposing there is present [craving], is there also past [craving]? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, etc. (and so forth, as before. The above is the second clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of future craving, is there also present [craving]? Answer: If it is currently present. Supposing there is present [craving], is there also future [craving]? Answer: Yes (the above is the third clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also future and present [craving]? Answer: The future definitely binds; the present [binds] if it is currently present. Supposing there is future and present [craving], is there also past [craving]? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned, etc. (the above is the fourth clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of future craving, is there also past and present [craving]? Answer: Here there are four clauses (as appropriate). Supposing there is past and present [craving], is there also future [craving]? Answer: Yes (the above is the fifth clause). If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of present craving, is there also past and future [craving]? Answer: The future definitely binds; the past [binds] if previously it arose and has not been abandoned, etc. Supposing there is past and future [craving], is there also present [craving]? Answer: If it is currently present (the above is the sixth clause). Just as the fetter of craving goes through the six, one should know that the fetters of hostility, pride, envy, stinginess, and non-universal ignorance also go through the six in the same way, because the meaning of fetters confused about self-characteristics is similar. Just as views go through the six, one should know that [view-]grasping, doubt, etc., going through the six are also like this, because the meaning of fetters confused about common characteristics is similar. Although there are differences of breadth and narrowness, they are of a similar kind (the above goes through the six clauses). If with respect to this matter there is past craving, is there also binding by the fetter of past hostility? Answer: If previously it arose and has not been abandoned it binds, etc. Supposing there is binding by the fetter of past hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the first clause of the lesser seven)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetter of future hostility? Supposing there is binding by the fetter of future hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the second clause)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetter of present hostility? Supposing there is binding by the fetter of present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the third clause)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetters of past and present hostility (answer: here there are four clauses)? Supposing there is binding by the fetters of past and present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the fourth clause)? If with respect to this matter there is past craving, is there also future and present hostility (answer: here there are three clauses)? Supposing there is future and present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the fifth clause)? If with respect to this matter there is the fetter of past craving, is there also past and future hostility (answer: here there are three clauses)? Supposing there is past and future hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the sixth clause)? If with respect to this matter there is binding by the fetter of past craving, is there also binding by the fetters of past, future, and present hostility? Answer: Here there are five clauses. Supposing there is binding by the fetters of past, future, and present hostility, is there also binding by the fetter of past craving (the above is the seventh clause)? Just as it is matched against the fetter of hostility, matching against the fetters of envy and stinginess is also like this. Matching craving against them forms the lesser seven clauses; just as there are the lesser seven, so there are the greater seven. The difference is: matching two against one, up to matching eight against one. That is, matching past craving and hostility first against past pride, next against future [pride], next against present [pride], next against past and present [pride], next against future and present [pride], next against past and future [pride], and again against past, future, and present [pride]. Question: What is the difference between one-line, traversing six, lesser seven, and greater seven? Answer: Furthermore, formulating questions and answers by matching dissimilar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas without determining by time period is called 'one-line'. Formulating questions and answers by matching similar dharmas against similar dharmas determined by time period is called 'traversing six'. Formulating questions and answers by matching dissimilar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas, determined by time period and matching one against one, is called 'lesser seven'. Formulating questions and answers by matching similar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas, determined by time period and matching two against one up to matching eight against one, is called 'greater seven'. This is the distinction. If they are common-characteristic defilements, they are not answered like this. Is it possible that what is bound by the fetter of past views is also [bound by] future [views]? Answer: Yes. Is it possible that what is bound by the fetter of future views is also [bound by] past [views]? Answer: Yes. This is asking about equals with equals, answered with an affirmative clause. If past and future are matched against the present, the past and future definitely bind, while the present binds if it arises.'