大乘義章 7.14

7.14

第一釋名。言三受者，所謂苦、樂、不苦不樂。逼惱名苦、適悅名樂，中容之受捨前二種，是故名為不苦不樂，亦名捨受。所言業者，善惡等因起作三受，故名為業。問曰：善惡能生五陰，以何義故偏云受業，不說色業想等業乎？如《成實論．三受品》說「受是實報，故云受業。餘是名報，故闕不論。」言受實者，苦樂等報正酬過去善惡之因，故名實報。自餘色等，非是正對善惡二因，故不名實；但是相從說以為報，故曰名報。彼論復言「受是最勝，故云受業。餘者不如，所以不說。」所言勝者，酬因明顯，生欣生厭，其力功強，故名為勝。餘不如是，故名不如。彼論復言「受於緣中相別可得，故云受業。餘不如是，癈而不論。」云何受心緣中可得？如人說言火苦火樂，如是一切，以受緣中發生差別，酬報義顯，故名受業（此一門竟）。

First, explaining the names. As for "the three feelings", they are suffering, pleasure, and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure. Afflictive oppression is called suffering; comfortable delight is called pleasure; neutral feeling renounces the previous two kinds, and is therefore called neither-suffering-nor-pleasure, also called the feeling of equanimity. What is termed "karma" is that causes such as wholesome and unwholesome give rise to the three feelings, and hence it is called karma. Question: Wholesome and unwholesome can generate the five aggregates; for what reason does one exclusively speak of feeling-karma, and not speak of form-karma, perception-karma, and so forth? As the "Chapter on the Three Feelings" in the *Tattvasiddhi* says, "Feeling is the real retribution; therefore it is called feeling-karma. The others are nominal retributions; therefore they are omitted and not discussed." As for feeling being real: retributions such as suffering and pleasure directly recompense the past causes of wholesome and unwholesome; therefore it is called real retribution. The rest, such as form, do not directly correspond to the two causes of wholesome and unwholesome, and therefore are not called real; they are merely spoken of as retribution by association, and thus are called nominal retribution. That treatise further states, "Feeling is the most supreme; therefore it is called feeling-karma. The others are inferior, which is why they are not mentioned." As for "supreme": its recompensing of the cause is obvious; it generates delight or revulsion; its power and function are strong; therefore it is called supreme. The others are not like this, and therefore are called inferior. That treatise further states, "Feeling can be distinctively apprehended in relation to conditions; therefore it is called feeling-karma. The others are not like this, and are set aside without discussion." How is the feeling-mind apprehended in relation to conditions? Just as a person says, "fire is painful, fire is pleasant," and so on for all things, because feeling arises with distinctions in relation to conditions, its meaning as recompensing retribution is apparent, and therefore it is called feeling-karma. (This concludes the first section.)