俱舍論疏 4.187

4.187

Regarding "The commentary says... conditioning forces disassociated from mind": "Such dharmas" generally presents the disassociated dharmas. "Disassociated from mind" excludes mind and mental factors. "Not having the nature of form, etc., and subsumed under the saṃskāra-skandha" excludes form and unconditioned dharmas. "Therefore they are called conditioning forces disassociated from mind" briefly concludes their name. In full, one should say "conditioning forces disassociated [from mind], being neither form nor mind"; here, merely saying "conditioning forces disassociated [from mind]" can also exclude all dharmas completely. Saying "disassociated" excludes all minds and mental factors; saying "conditioning forces" (saṃskāra) refers to the saṃskāra-skandha, excluding form and the unconditioned. Because of this, various treatises mostly preserve the abbreviated name. Someone explained the verse themselves, saying: "'Etc.' means including the collection of phrases (padakāya) and the collection of syllables (vyañjanakāya); 'class' means category, which is acquisition (prāpti) and so forth." Now, examining this treatise, there are only fourteen conditioning forces disassociated from mind. If according to the Nyāyānusāra, the nature of concordance (sāmagrī) is added; therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "'Etc.' includes the collection of phrases, the collection of syllables, and the nature of concordance." Examining Master Guang's extensive questions and answers regarding the two different views: although this treatise does not specifically mention concordance, neither does it state that it is nonexistent. The Nyāyānusāra explains this treatise's verse as including concordance; hence we know that the two treatises are not in conflict. If one considers that what is not stated is nonexistent, then since fear and so forth are not stated in this treatise's verse, there should be no fear. Since fear and so forth are not definitively nonexistent, how can one know that concordance does not exist? Now examining this treatise, it merely abbreviates and does not discuss it; it is not that beyond what is explained there are no other mental factors. Since mental factors are like this, concordance should be the same. Not relying on the treatise text, but trusting one's own subjective mind in back-and-forth debate, is merely wasting paper and ink. He himself says that the Prakaraṇapāda does not mention non-acquisition (aprāpti) and states that there are thirteen, agreeing with the Abhidharmakośa. He also says: That treatise states, "There are further remaining dharmas of such kind that are disassociated from mind." Fascicle 10 of the Dharmaskandha agrees with the Prakaraṇapāda. Since that treatise says "remaining dharmas of such kind," how does one know there is only non-acquisition? This treatise does not state that there are no others, and the Nyāyānusāra does not criticize the Abhidharmakośa. The Six Pādas state that there are remaining ones, and the Nyāyānusāra states that there is concordance. Other passages can all admit both explanations, and the Nyāyānusāra contains no other contradictions. Since the scriptural teaching is clear and reasoning demands explaining it accordingly, we know that beyond the fourteen there are further disassociated conditioning forces. The Vibhāṣā says that "class" indicates dharmas posited by other masters. The Nyāyānusāra says that "class" indicates dharmas posited by others, which are the aforesaid categories, meaning there are those who posit natures such as skandha-acquisition separate from acquisition and so forth. This slightly agrees with the Vibhāṣā.