俱舍論頌疏論本 6.14

6.14

如大相所相，心於心隨轉者，指體也。此有三類：如大者，謂四大種，第一類也。此四大種造果之時，互相假籍生所造色，故互相望為俱有因。相與所相者，第二類也。相者，四法相也。此四法相與所相法更互為果，謂此能相相所相故。復因所相能相轉故，故互為果，名俱有因。心於心隨轉者，第三類也。謂心王與心隨轉法亦更互為果。論云：「是則俱有因，由互為果，遍攝有為法，如其所應。」解云：結上三類也。如其所應者，謂有為法中有五：一四大互相望、二相所相相望、三四相自互相望、四心與心隨轉相望、五隨轉自互相望，皆俱有因，故言如其所應也。又論云：「法與隨相非互為果，然法與隨相為俱有因，非隨相於法，此中應辨。」解云：此文是論主出有宗，以互為果釋俱有因有過也。法者，所相法也。隨相者，小四相也。法不因小相相，法非小相果。小相因法轉，小相是法果，故言法與隨相非互為果。然法與隨相為俱有因者，以隨相因法轉故也。法與隨相為俱有因，非隨相於法者，以隨相不相所相法故，隨相望法非俱有因。既法與隨相非互為果，而名俱有因，如何今以互為果義釋俱有因？此中應辨者，勸釋通也。

In “as the great [elements], the marks and that which possesses the marks, and the mind in relation to the mind-concomitants,” it points out their entities. There are three categories of these: “As the great [elements]” refers to the four great elements, which are the first category. When these four great elements produce an effect, they mutually rely on one another to produce derived matter; therefore, in relation to one another, they are coexistence causes (sahabhū-hetu). “The marks and that which possesses the marks” is the second category. The “marks” are the four characteristic marks of conditioned phenomena. These four characteristic marks of phenomena and the phenomena possessing the marks are mutually effects of one another, which means that these active markers mark that which is marked, and further, because of that which is marked, the active markers can function; therefore, they are mutually effects and are termed coexistence causes. “The mind in relation to the mind-concomitants” is the third category. That is, the primary mind and the phenomena concomitant with the mind are also mutually effects of one another. The treatise says: “Thus, coexistence causes, through being mutually effects, comprehensively encompass conditioned phenomena according to their propriety.” The commentary explains: This concludes the three categories above. “According to their propriety” means that among conditioned phenomena there are five [pairings]: first, the four great elements in relation to one another; second, the marks and that which possesses the marks in relation to each other; third, the four marks among themselves; fourth, the mind and the mind-concomitants in relation to each other; fifth, the concomitants among themselves. All of these are coexistence causes, which is why it says 'according to their propriety.' Furthermore, the treatise says: “A phenomenon and its secondary marks are not mutually effects, yet the phenomenon is a coexistence cause for its secondary marks, but not the secondary marks for the phenomenon; this should be analyzed here.” The commentary explains: This passage is where the author of the treatise points out that the Sarvāstivāda has a flaw in explaining the coexistence cause through the meaning of 'mutually being effects.' The “phenomenon” is the phenomenon possessing the marks. The “secondary marks” are the four minor marks. The phenomenon is not marked by the minor marks, so the phenomenon is not the effect of the minor marks. The minor marks function due to the phenomenon, so the minor marks are the effect of the phenomenon; thus it says that the phenomenon and the secondary marks are not mutually effects. However, that the phenomenon is a coexistence cause for the secondary marks is because the secondary marks function dependent on the phenomenon. That the phenomenon is a coexistence cause for the secondary marks, but not the secondary marks for the phenomenon, is because the secondary marks do not mark the phenomenon possessing the marks; therefore, the secondary marks are not coexistence causes in relation to the phenomenon. Since the phenomenon and the secondary marks are not mutually effects and yet are termed coexistence causes, how can one now explain the coexistence cause through the meaning of 'mutually being effects'? 'This should be analyzed here' is an encouragement to explain and resolve this.