大乘義章 7.15

7.15

次辨其相。問曰：何業能得苦受，乃至何業能得捨受？釋言：惡業能得苦受，善業能得樂捨二受。惡業得苦，義在可知。善業之中，何者得樂？何者得捨？《毘婆沙》中兩師別論。一師釋云：善有三品，謂下中上。四禪已上上妙之善，能得捨受。故彼論言「得不苦不樂，是說為上善。」中下二善，皆得樂受。問曰：下地以何義故無捨受報？《毘曇》釋言「下地是麁，捨受是細。下地不寂，捨受寂靜。又復下地作善之時，但為受樂，不為於捨，是故下地無捨受報。」如此說者，三禪已還無有報心而命終者，無報捨故。一師所立，三品善中，上下二善能得捨受，中善得樂。如此說者，三禪已還亦有報捨。有報捨故，三禪已還報心之中亦得命終。成實法中，同向後說，三品善中，上下二善能得捨受。下者能得三禪已還捨受之報，上者能得四禪已上捨受之報。良以善法起不頓成，始微次著終則微妙離相寂靜、是故上下同得捨受、中得樂受。問曰：捨受既從善生，酬遂善因應名為樂，以何義故說名為捨？釋言：有以。下善所得通應名樂，以輕微故，覺心不了，故名為捨。上善所得實是勝樂，以寂靜故，捨麁覺心，故說為捨。問曰：所感上下二樂名為捨者，能感之善應名無記。釋言：不類。夫無記者，不能記得當來果報，方名無記。良以記法生果為義，但令生果，斯名為記。樂者是其覺知為義，上下二樂，覺心微少，故不名樂，說為捨矣。問曰：下善所得樂果，覺心微故便名捨者，下不善業所得微苦，覺心亦少，以何義故不名為捨？釋言。不類。苦性麁重，違心義強，皆有覺知，故不名捨。樂性輕薄，起不違心，生覺義微，故說為捨。問曰：苦樂並從業生：以何義故苦麁樂微？釋言：三界有為之法，體是無常生滅行苦。彼苦受者，用彼微細行苦為體，苦上生苦，苦增故麁；彼樂受者，亦用微細行苦為體，苦上生樂，浮薄故微。以苦麁故，輕重之苦皆名苦受；以樂微故，麁為樂受，細為捨受（此二門竟）。

Next is to explain their characteristics. Question: What karma can obtain painful feeling, up to what karma can obtain equanimous feeling? Explanation: Unwholesome karma can obtain painful feeling; wholesome karma can obtain both pleasant and equanimous feelings. That unwholesome karma obtains pain is self-evident in meaning. Among wholesome karma, which obtains pleasure and which obtains equanimity? In the *Vibhāṣā*, two masters discuss this differently. One master explains: Wholesomeness has three grades, namely low, medium, and high. The superior and subtle wholesome deeds of the fourth dhyāna and above can obtain equanimous feeling. Therefore, that treatise says: "Obtaining neither-pain-nor-pleasure is called superior wholesomeness." Both medium and low wholesome deeds obtain pleasant feeling. Question: For what reason does the lower stage have no retribution of equanimous feeling? The *Abhidharma* explains: "The lower stage is coarse, while equanimous feeling is subtle. The lower stage is not tranquil, while equanimous feeling is serene. Furthermore, when creating wholesome deeds in the lower stage, one acts merely to experience pleasure, not for equanimity; therefore, the lower stage has no retribution of equanimous feeling." According to this explanation, beneath the third dhyāna there is no dying with a retribution mind, because there is no retribution equanimity. The second master maintains: Among the three grades of wholesomeness, both superior and inferior wholesome deeds can obtain equanimous feeling, while medium wholesome deeds obtain pleasure. According to this explanation, beneath the third dhyāna there is also retribution equanimity. Because there is retribution equanimity, beneath the third dhyāna one can also die within a retribution mind. In the *Tattvasiddhi* system, it agrees with the latter view: among the three grades of wholesomeness, both superior and inferior wholesome deeds can obtain equanimous feeling. The inferior can obtain the retribution of equanimous feeling beneath the third dhyāna; the superior can obtain the retribution of equanimous feeling of the fourth dhyāna and above. This is truly because wholesome dharmas do not arise and become perfected all at once; they are subtle at first, then prominent, and ultimately subtle, wondrous, free of characteristics, and serene. Therefore, the superior and inferior alike obtain equanimous feeling, while the medium obtains pleasant feeling. Question: Since equanimous feeling arises from wholesomeness, as it repays and accords with a wholesome cause, it ought to be called pleasure; for what reason is it termed equanimity? Explanation: There is a reason. What is obtained through inferior wholesomeness ought generally to be called pleasure, but because it is slight and faint, the conscious mind does not clearly perceive it; therefore, it is termed equanimity. What is obtained through superior wholesomeness is truly supreme pleasure, but because it is serene and detaches from the coarse conscious mind, it is spoken of as equanimity. Question: If the superior and inferior pleasures thus induced are called equanimity, should the wholesomeness capable of inducing them be called morally neutral? Explanation: They are not of the same category. For something to be morally neutral, it is called morally neutral only because it cannot record future karmic fruit and retribution. Truly, because the meaning of a recorded dharma is to produce fruit, as long as it causes fruit to arise, it is called recorded. As for pleasure, its meaning is conscious perception. In the superior and inferior pleasures, the conscious mind is faint and minimal; therefore, it is not called pleasure, but is spoken of as equanimity. Question: If the pleasant fruit obtained through inferior wholesomeness is called equanimity simply because the conscious mind is faint, then in the slight pain obtained through inferior unwholesome karma, the conscious mind is also minimal; for what reason is it not called equanimity? Explanation: They are not of the same category. The nature of pain is coarse and heavy, and its opposition to the mind is strong, so it is always consciously perceived; therefore, it is not called equanimity. The nature of pleasure is light and thin, and its arising does not oppose the mind, so the sense of conscious awareness produced is faint; thus it is spoken of as equanimity. Question: Both pain and pleasure arise from karma; for what reason is pain coarse and pleasure faint? Explanation: The conditioned dharmas of the three realms are in essence impermanent, undergoing arising and cessation, which is the suffering of conditioned formations. That painful feeling takes that subtle suffering of conditioned formations as its essence: pain arising upon suffering, the suffering increases and is therefore coarse. That pleasant feeling also takes the subtle suffering of conditioned formations as its essence: pleasure arising upon suffering, being superficial and thin, it is therefore faint. Because pain is coarse, both light and heavy pain are called painful feeling; because pleasure is faint, what is coarse is pleasant feeling, and what is subtle is equanimous feeling. (This concludes the second section.)