俱舍論疏 6.71

6.71

On the Śāstra's statement: "Other masters say... neither serves as cause": this is the fourth explanation. This master's intention is: although the four aggregates and the aggregate of matter are equally unspecified, their power is weak and they are of different categories, so they do not serve mutually as causes. With four differing explanations and no critical assessment in the text, which is the correct view? The answer is: one should state that the first explanation is good, because it is identical to the wholesome and defiled. Within the natures of wholesome and defiled, since matter and the four aggregates serve mutually as causes, why would unspecified karmic matter not serve mutually as a cause with the four aggregates? [To say otherwise] would violate the precedent of the two natures. In refuting the second master: wholesome mind generates wholesome matter, and wholesome matter is also the cause of the four wholesome [aggregates]; unspecified [mind] generates unspecified [matter], so why would the four aggregates not be the cause of matter? In refuting the third master: in the phenomenon of homogeneous cause, an inferior [phenomenon] can be the cause of a superior one, so why should matter, being inferior, not be the cause of the four aggregates? In refuting the fourth master: in the wholesome five aggregates and so on, although matter and mind differ, they serve mutually as causes; why would unspecified matter and mind, in relation to each other, fail completely to constitute causes? Someone misunderstood the Vibhāṣā and erroneously judged the last explanation to be correct, saying: 'All treatises contain four explanations, none having a critical arbiter; we now interpret that the last master's view should be provisionally taken as correct.' Thus the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 131, says: 'How many conditions do the primary elements serve for the mental base? Answer: objective support and predominant [conditions]. How many conditions does the mental base serve for the primary elements? Answer: causal and predominant [conditions]. As for causal, there is one cause, namely the maturation cause. As for predominant, it is as stated before.' He interprets this as: since the unspecified four great elements and the mental base, in relation to each other, are not said to have a homogeneous cause, from this we know by analogy that the unspecified aggregate of matter and the unspecified four aggregates, in relation to each other, are not homogeneous causes. We now examine this explanation and find it does not grasp its school's tenets. When saying that the unspecified five aggregates serve mutually as causes, does one mean that all aggregates of matter serve mutually as causes? Saying that they serve mutually as causes refers to unspecified karmic matter serving as a cause for the four, not to those born of maturation or accumulated through nourishment. Since the Vibhāṣā mentions the four great elements, which are not karmic matter, how can this serve as proof? Moreover, the Śāstra first sets forth the correct doctrine as identical to the wholesome and defiled, and only later recounts the indeterminate three views of differing masters; why should one use the views of differing masters to overturn its foundational tenets?