[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [瑜伽師地論略纂](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829) › 13.69 # 瑜伽師地論略纂 13.69 瑜伽師地論略纂 13.69 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [13.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.69) 命根，法師云：唯於阿賴耶上立，唯是總報。違《顯揚》文，彼言六處住時決定故。如《對法抄》。何故不立小命根與大命根為根？如四相等。今大乘不立亦無妨。《對法》約眾同分上立，故知通總別報。先業所引言，唯是異熟，不得通長養、等流上。若於眾同分立言，亦似通長養，然亦言先業，故唯報。又不然，唯是心上立，即六識異熟生心能持六處上亦無妨。餘如《對法》。又生類後報不言報，非現報。然如變易潤生及阿羅漢捨衣鉢延命，皆滋宿業，故非現報。　問曰：此宿業為長為短？若長，應自生，何須滋？若短，延命何故長？即現業招，應是現報。今解：過去業之宿命，今滋舊業，故非現報。有現報，何事判文中有先業言？故非現報。　眾同分，通長養、等流及異熟，可知。通三性，如先已辨。 > Regarding the life-faculty (jīvitendriya), the Dharma Master states: it is established solely upon the ālaya\[-vijñāna\] and is solely general retribution. This contradicts the text of the Prakaraṇāryavācā, which states that it is because the duration of the six sense-bases is determinate, as in the Excerpts on the Abhidharma\[-samuccaya\]. Why is a secondary life-faculty not posited as a root for the primary life-faculty, as with the four characteristics, etc.? Now, in the Mahāyāna, not positing it also presents no problem. The Abhidharma\[-samuccaya\] establishes it upon nikāya-sabhāga (group homogeneity); hence one knows it encompasses both general and particular retribution. The statement "drawn by past karma" means it is exclusively vipāka (karmic maturation) and cannot extend to nurturing (aupacayika) or outflow (niṣyanda). If it is established upon group homogeneity, it also seems to extend to nurturing; yet it also states "past karma," so it is exclusively retribution. Or, alternatively, it is established solely upon mind: that is, it is also unproblematic that the mind born of karmic maturation among the six consciousnesses can sustain the six sense-bases. The rest is as in the Abhidharma\[-samuccaya\]. Furthermore, retribution after the category of birth is not called retribution; it is not retribution in the present life. However, such cases as the transformation body prolonging life to take birth, and the arhat giving up his robes and bowl to extend life, both nurture past karma; hence they are not present retribution. Question: Is this past karma long or short? If long, it should arise of itself, so why would it need nurturing? If short, why would extending life make it long? It would be brought about by present karma and should be present retribution. Now the explanation: It is the past lifespan of past karma; now it nurtures the old karma, so it is not present retribution. If there were present retribution, for what reason would the judgment text contain the phrase "past karma"? Therefore, it is not present retribution. Group homogeneity (nikāya-sabhāga) encompasses nurturing, outflow, and karmic maturation, as can be known. It encompasses the three natures, as previously differentiated. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 13.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.68) - [Next: 13.70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.70) - [Up: 13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829~en-mt.13.69) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.13.416) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.69) · Pramāṇa