俱舍論疏 9.92

9.92

The Śāstra says: "… collectively called the king's procession." This is the first: the nature of ignorance. Saying "the stage of afflictions" means taking the five skandhas at the time the afflictions arise as the nature, not merely the afflictions alone. Therefore the Vibhāṣā says: "The mental and mental derivative dharmas of five links are defiled, while the rest are defiled or undefiled. The five links are ignorance, consciousness, craving, grasping, and the link of birth." If we follow this text stating, "Because they operate together with ignorance," that is taking all skandhas collectively. When it says, "Because they become manifest through the power of ignorance … it is collectively called the king's procession," it specifically refers to defiled mind and mental derivatives. This means that defiled mind and mental derivatives are collectively called ignorance, and the remaining two skandhas derive their name by association. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Why does the term 'ignorance' refer collectively to the afflictions? Because it is the determinate cause that pulls karmic formations into future existence. Karma is instigated by afflictions and is able to pull toward future existence; if there were no afflictions but there were karma, future existence would not occur. It is not that when all karmic formations pulling future existence arise, attachment and the rest all have function therein; at the stage where those karmic formations arise, they definitely depend on ignorance; therefore the term 'ignorance' refers collectively to the afflictions." If so, why are only the afflictions of a prior life collectively called ignorance, while those of this life are not so? This is a question. Only the afflictions of a prior life resemble ignorance, because before afflictions such as attachment obtain their fruit, their power and function are unimpaired and are said to be clear and sharp. Once they have obtained their fruit, their function of grasping and giving is impaired, and they are not called clear and sharp. Even when the power of ignorance has not yet been impaired, it is still not clear and sharp, because when it is manifest it is also difficult to discern. Since all afflictions of the prior life have already obtained their fruit in the present life, their power is impaired, their characteristics are unclear, and they resemble the category of ignorance; therefore only the afflictions of a prior lifetime can be designated by the term 'ignorance'. It is not that this should also be said identically in the case of karmic formations, because metaphorical designations are applied only to those of the same category. However, the author of the Śāstra says: 'Because they operate together with ignorance, and because they become manifest through the power of ignorance, just as when it is said that the king marches, it does not mean there is no retinue, yet because the king is preeminent, it is collectively called the king's procession' (the above is the text of the Abhidharmakośa; below is the refutation in the Nyāyānusāra). We do not understand the meaning of 'operating together' here: does it mean that the other afflictions follow ignorance, or that ignorance follows the other afflictions? If one takes the former meaning, in principle it cannot be so, because the ignorance associated with other afflictions is inferior; that the superior should follow the inferior cannot hold in principle. If one takes the latter meaning, the entity of ignorance should derive its name from them, because it follows them. It is not the case that what does not follow this can derive its name from this. If it is said that they mutually follow each other, because there is no difference, designating the name based on one side without a determinate cause—how could this give rise to satisfaction? Furthermore, regarding 'because they become manifest through the power of ignorance', is this said with reference to the ignorance that is able to direct, or with reference to the ignorance that conforms and follows? Both alternatives are unreasonable. Ignorance also operates due to attachment and the rest, and because it is associated with others, it is not autonomous; what is not autonomous cannot be said to have strong power. One should only say that ignorance arises through the power of attachment and the rest, because among the dharmas associated with it, the power of attachment and the rest is strong. Just as one cannot say the retinue surpasses the king, how can one say attachment and the rest arise through the power of ignorance? Therefore, neither of the two reasons provides proof. Based on what was said earlier, that reasoning is superior.