俱舍論疏 6.154

6.154

The treatise says: "Therefore, one should only [...] to distinguish it from the other causes." The author of the treatise sets forth his own explanation. Ripening through alteration is the meaning of maturation (vipāka); it should not be as the *Vibhāṣā* masters say, that "ripening" extends to all five fruits and that "different" is merely used to distinguish it from other causes. The *Nyāyānusāra* defends [the *Vibhāṣā*], saying: "However, the author of the sūtra (*Kośakāra*) says: 'The masters of the *Vibhāṣā* explain it like this: ripening into a different class is the meaning of maturation. That is, the maturation cause ripens only into a different class, whereas coexistent and other causes ripen only into the same class. The efficient cause alone ripens into both the same and different classes; therefore, this one alone is called maturation cause'—and so on in detail. None of this is reasonable, for the masters of the *Vibhāṣā* do not definitively state that what is obtained from all six causes is called 'ripening'. Even if that were granted, it is another name for the fruit, and there is no fault in it either." The *Nyāyānusāra* itself explains: "However, 'maturation cause' may be analyzed as a karmadhāraya compound, as when a sūtra speaks of the 'eye born of maturation'; or it may be analyzed as a tatpuruṣa compound, which is why a sūtra says 'the maturation of karma'. When speaking of 'maturation', it either means ripening apart from the cause (vi-pāka), or ripening different from the cause; these two belong to the fruit. Or it means that the karma created transforms and can ripen at the time it obtains the fruit; this one belongs to the cause." It also says: "Speaking in general, there are two kinds of this maturation cause: first, that which can project (ākṣepaka); second, that which can fulfill (paripūraka). Furthermore, the common lot (nikāyasabhāga) and the life-faculty (jīvitendriya) cannot be projected solely by conditioning factors dissociated from thought (cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra)." It also says: "Karma must project life and the common lot." It also says: "Physical and vocal karma definitely cannot project life and the common lot. Otherwise, that would contradict both scripture and correct logic, for the sūtras say they are projected by the volition of an inferior realm. This states that life and the common lot in the desire realm and realm of existence are induced solely by mental karma, not physical or vocal karma. Physical and vocal manifest karma consist of many subtle particles arisen from a single thought; among them, only one would project the common lot and the life-faculty, and the rest would lack this capacity, which is unreasonable. If it were admitted that they simultaneously and jointly bring about a single fruit, they would mutually become coexistent causes; yet resistant derived matter serving as coexistent causes is not admitted by our school. Furthermore, it is not the case that each subtle particle successively projects the life-faculty and the common lot, because they arise from a single thought; nor can it be without fault that [particles] arisen from a single thought without different functions separately project what arises later. For fulfilling karma, there is no such fault, because within a single life, they can individually appropriate fulfilling fruits such as color, odor, taste, and so on. In accordance with this, unmanifest karma is also explained in the same way, because the multiple entities of abstinence arise from a single thought, and are not admitted to be coexistent causes of one another." Based on this passage of the treatise, outside the passages of the *Vibhāṣā* and so forth, this meaning is further established: because the power and efficacy of the projecting fruit, the fulfilling fruit, and their arising earlier or later are distinct, what is projected by a single thought is not made disparate. Both being a fulfilling fruit of a single maturation, although color and so forth are distinct, their power and efficacy are the same; hence, being projected by the same single thought, the fruits they induce have distinctions.