俱舍論頌疏論本 22.13

22.13

"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."