俱舍論頌疏論本 22.13

22.13

如所應一切者，一切有漏如其所應與三苦合，皆名苦諦：一、可意有漏法與壞苦合，名為苦也。二、不可意有漏法與苦苦合，名為苦也。三、餘有漏法與行苦合，名為苦也。謂除可意、不可意外，名餘有漏。應知此中說可意名壞苦、說不可意名苦苦者，且約別論，理實可意及不可意皆名行苦，無常性故，故一切行行苦故苦。行苦微細，唯聖觀見，故經部師鳩摩羅多頌曰：「如以一睫毛，置掌人不覺，若置眼睛上，為損及不安。愚夫如手掌，不覺行苦睫，智者如眼睛，緣極生厭怖（緣是行苦）。」故諸愚夫於無間獄生苦怖心，不如眾聖於有頂蘊，以有頂蘊是行苦故。問：「若諸法中亦許有樂，何緣但說苦為聖諦？」答：「薩婆多宗中有一類釋，由樂少故，如置綠豆烏豆聚中，以少從多，名烏豆聚。誰有智者瀝水洗癰，有少樂生，計癰為樂？經部祖師以頌釋言：『能為苦因故，能集眾苦故，有苦希彼故，說樂亦名苦。』婆娑正義解云：理實應言，諸有及樂體皆是苦，以就行苦同一味故，由此言苦，為諦非樂。又依經部宗及大眾部等，定無實樂，受唯是苦，愚夫顛倒妄謂之樂，故世尊言：『汝應以苦觀於樂受。』薩婆多宗言：樂實有，佛言以苦觀樂受者，意顯樂受有二種性：一、有樂性，依自相門自性樂故。二、有苦性，謂依異相門亦是無常變壞法故。故言以苦觀樂受者，依行苦及壞苦說，非苦苦也。故有頌曰：『諸佛正遍覺，知諸行無常（行苦），及有為變壞（壞苦），故說受皆苦。』」於前兩說，論主評云：「對法諸師，言實有樂，此言應理。又薩婆多宗苦、集一物，因、果分二，即苦諦體為因義邊，亦名集諦。若依經部宗，唯說貪愛為集諦體，以經唯說貪愛為集故。薩婆多云：經就勝故，說愛為集，理實一切皆是集諦，故薄伽梵伽陀中說：『業愛及無明，為因招後行，令諸有相續，名補特伽羅。』此頌既言業與無明為因招果，故知非唯愛為集諦。」

"Everything as appropriate" means that all contaminated [phenomena], as appropriate to each, are conjoined with the three sufferings, and are all called the truth of suffering: First, agreeable contaminated dharmas are conjoined with the suffering of change and are called suffering. Second, disagreeable contaminated dharmas are conjoined with the suffering of suffering and are called suffering. Third, the remaining contaminated dharmas are conjoined with the suffering of conditioning and are called suffering. That is to say, aside from the agreeable and disagreeable, [these] are called the remaining contaminated [dharmas]. One should know that here, saying that the agreeable is called the suffering of change and the disagreeable is called the suffering of suffering is stated merely according to a distinction; in reality, both the agreeable and the disagreeable are called the suffering of conditioning, because of their impermanent nature; therefore, all conditioned things are suffering on account of the suffering of conditioning. The suffering of conditioning is subtle, seen only by the contemplation of noble ones. Therefore the Sautrāntika master Kumāralāta spoke in verse: / 'Just as a single eyelash / placed upon the palm is not felt by a person, / but if placed upon the eye / causes injury and distress; / foolish commoners are like the palm of the hand, / not perceiving the eyelash of the suffering of conditioning; / the wise are like the eye, / taking it as object, they generate extreme revulsion and fear (the object is the suffering of conditioning).' / Therefore, foolish commoners generate a fearful mind towards the suffering in the Avīci Hell, but not like the noble ones toward the aggregates of the Summit of Existence, because the aggregates of the Summit of Existence are the suffering of conditioning. / Question: "If pleasure is also admitted among all dharmas, for what reason is only suffering spoken of as a noble truth?" / Answer: "Among the Sarvāstivāda school, there is one explanation: because pleasure is slight, just as when a mung bean is placed in a heap of black beans, following the majority on account of its smallness, it is called a heap of black beans. What wise person, washing an ulcer with dripping water, upon feeling slight pleasure arising, would regard the ulcer as pleasure? A founding master of the Sautrāntika explained in verse: / 'Because it can be a cause of suffering, / because it can accumulate manifold sufferings, / and because those who have suffering long for it, / pleasure is also spoken of as suffering.' / The orthodox view of the Vibhāṣā explains: 'In truth it should be said that all existences and pleasures are inherently suffering, because, in terms of the suffering of conditioning, they are of one and the same flavour; on this account suffering is spoken of as a truth, not pleasure.' Furthermore, according to the Sautrāntika school and the Mahāsāṃghika and others, there is definitely no real pleasure; feeling is only suffering, and foolish commoners, perverted, falsely call it pleasure; therefore the World-Honoured One said: 'You should view pleasant feeling as suffering.' The Sarvāstivāda school says: Pleasure is real; when the Buddha said to view pleasant feeling as suffering, the intention was to reveal that pleasant feeling has two kinds of nature: First, it has the nature of pleasure, because in terms of its specific characteristic its intrinsic nature is pleasure. Second, it has the nature of suffering, meaning that in terms of its general characteristic it is also an impermanent dharma subject to alteration and destruction. Therefore, saying that one should view pleasant feeling as suffering is spoken in terms of the suffering of conditioning and the suffering of change, not the suffering of suffering. Therefore a verse says: / 'The Buddhas, the Fully Awakened Ones, / knowing that all conditioned things are impermanent (the suffering of conditioning), / and that conditioned dharmas alter and are destroyed (the suffering of change), / therefore spoke of all feelings as suffering.'" / Regarding the previous two views, the author of the treatise evaluates: "The Abhidharma masters say that pleasure is real; these words are reasonable. Furthermore, in the Sarvāstivāda school, suffering and origin are a single entity, divided into two as cause and effect: the substance of the truth of suffering itself, in its aspect as cause, is also called the truth of origin. If according to the Sautrāntika school, craving alone is spoken of as the substance of the truth of origin, because the sūtra speaks only of craving as origin. The Sarvāstivāda says: 'The sūtra, in terms of preeminence, speaks of craving as origin; in reality, everything [contaminated] is the truth of origin.' Therefore the Bhagavān said in a gāthā: / 'Karma, craving, and ignorance / act as cause to bring about future conditioned things; / causing the continuities of all existences, / they are called a person (pudgala).' / Since this verse states that karma and ignorance serve as cause to bring about the fruit, one knows that it is not craving alone that is the truth of origin."