俱舍論頌疏論本 6.14

6.14

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.