俱舍論疏 6.40

6.40

On the Śāstra's stating, "It contradicts the *Prakaraṇapāda* [...] namely, the phenomena that are excluded": This presents the contradictory text. If one does not explain it extensively, the concise meaning is difficult to know, because the meanings of the clauses cited as evidence before and after are different. Relying on Chapter Thirteen, "The Thousand Questions," of the *Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra*, where the view of self-existence is queried against the four noble truths, it says: "How many have the view of self-existence as their cause but are not a cause for the view of self-existence, etc.? Two do not have the view of self-existence as cause, nor are they a cause for the view of self-existence; two should be distinguished (the first two being cessation and the path, the latter two being suffering and the origin). Namely: the noble truth of suffering either has the view of self-existence as cause and is not a cause for the view of self-existence; or has the view of self-existence as cause and is also a cause for the view of self-existence; or does not have the view of self-existence as cause and is not a cause for the view of self-existence. Herein there are only three distinct alternatives. There is no fourth alternative, because the view of self-existence is a universal cause. Among defiled phenomena, which can produce all defiled phenomena, none can produce the view of self-existence without being produced from the view of self-existence; and among undefiled phenomena, there is again none that can produce the view of self-existence. This is because the treatise is composed here based on causal conditions. 'Having the view of self-existence as cause and not being a cause for the view of self-existence' refers to taking up the first alternative, the single-sided alternative. Because these phenomena are numerous, excluding the narrower and taking the broader, there are four passages of text. Excluding the 'both' alternative: namely, excluding past and present anusayas abandoned by seeing suffering, and their associated and coexistent [phenomena], etc. The word 'etc.' refers to possession. These arise from the view of self-existence via similar and universal causes, and act as similar causes to produce the view of self-existence. For the associated and coexistent phenomena of the view of self-existence, associated and coexistent causes are added. Furthermore, excluding past and present universal anusayas abandoned by seeing the origin, and the associated and coexistent truth of suffering—this is the second passage. These are excluded because they arise from the view of self-existence as a universal cause and act as universal causes to produce this view of self-existence. Possession is not a universal cause, so 'etc.' is not said. Furthermore, excluding future truths of suffering associated with the view of self-existence—this is the third passage of exclusion. This cites the view of self-existence and excludes associated phenomena, not excluding the view of self-existence. These are excluded because the associated phenomena act as associated and coexistent causes to produce the view of self-existence. Furthermore, excluding the arising, aging, staying, and impermanence of the future view of self-existence and its associated phenomena, and all remaining defiled truths of suffering—this is the fourth passage of excluded phenomena. This cites the view of self-existence and its associated phenomena and takes arising, aging, staying, and impermanence, because they produce the view of self-existence via coexistent causes, and so they are excluded. All remaining defiled truths of suffering are precisely the truths of suffering that arise from the view of self-existence and do not act as causes for the view of self-existence. 'Having the view of self-existence as cause and also being a cause for the view of self-existence' refers to the aforementioned excluded phenomena. 'Not having the view of self-existence as cause and not being a cause for the view of self-existence' refers to undefiled truths of suffering. The noble truth of the origin is also like this (this concludes the text of the treatise)." The reason why the numbers of alternatives for suffering and the origin are the same is that the truths of suffering and the origin share all contaminated [phenomena] as their essence; in terms of the meaning of cause it is called the origin, and in terms of the meaning of fruit it is called suffering. Just as consciousness and mind have no difference in scope of essence, yet the afflictions that delude one regarding the two truths are different. That is, if fully possessing ten, the origin has only seven. The variant explanations of some masters are all not the intended meaning of the school. When that treatise says: "Some truths of suffering have the view of self-existence as cause and do not act as causes for the view of self-existence," this takes up the first clause of the *Prakaraṇapāda*. Stating: "Excluding the arising, aging, staying, and impermanence of the future view of self-existence and its associated phenomena, and all remaining defiled truths of suffering," skips the preceding three passages and takes up the text of the fourth passage. Since the four characteristics upon the view of self-existence and its associated phenomena are excluded because they constitute the 'both' alternative, one therefore knows that the four characteristics upon phenomena associated with the mind can also produce the mind, because the four characteristics upon phenomena associated with the view of self-existence in the future produce the view of self-existence solely through coexistent causes, having no other cause. Stating: "Some truths of suffering [...] namely, the phenomena that are excluded," takes up the second clause of the *Prakaraṇapāda*. This proves that the four characteristics upon phenomena associated with the view of self-existence constitute the 'both' alternative; by this it is proven and known that [the view of] fourteen [causes] is incorrect.