阿毘達磨俱舍論卷第十
尊者世親造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
分別世品第三之三
無明何義？謂體非明。若爾，無明應是眼等。既爾，此義應謂明無。若爾，無明體應非有。為顯有體義不濫餘，頌曰：
What is the meaning of ignorance? It means the essence is not clarity. If so, ignorance should be the eyes and so on. Since that is the case, this meaning should refer to the absence of clarity. If so, the essence of ignorance should be non-existent. To reveal the meaning of having an essence and avoid confusion with other things, the verse says:
明所治無明， 如非親實等。
The ignorance to be eliminated is like a false friend or a counterfeit object.
論曰：如諸親友所對怨敵，親友相違名非親友，非異親友、非親友無。諦語名實，此所對治虛誑言論名為非實，非異於實、亦非實無。等言為顯非法非義，非事等性非異非無。如是無明別有實體，是明所治，非異非無。云何知然？說行緣故。復有誠證。頌曰：
Discussion: Just as friends stand opposed to enemies, the discord among friends is called "non-friends," yet it is not something entirely separate from friends, nor does it mean friends do not exist. Truthful speech is called "real," while the deceptive words it counters are called "unreal"—not entirely distinct from the real, nor does it mean reality is absent. The phrase "and so on" indicates what is contrary to the Dharma and its meaning, not something entirely separate or non-existent. Similarly, ignorance has its own distinct reality; it is what wisdom counteracts—not entirely separate, nor non-existent. How do we know this? Because it is said that actions arise from conditions. There is further evidence for this. The verse states:
說為結等故， 非惡慧見故，
與見相應故， 說能染慧故。
It is called a fetter because it binds, Not because of wrong views or poor understanding. Because it arises together with views, And because it defiles wisdom.
論曰：經說無明以為結縛、隨眠及漏、軛、瀑、流等，非餘眼等及體全無可得說為結縛等事，故有別法說名無明。如惡妻子名無妻子，如是惡慧應名無明，彼非無明有是見故。諸染污慧名為惡慧，於中有見故非無明。若爾，非見慧應許是無明。不爾，無明見相應故。無明若是慧，應見不相應，無二慧體共相應故。又說無明能染慧故，如契經言：貪欲染心令不解脫，無明染慧令不清淨，非慧還能染於慧體。如貪異類能染於心。無明亦應異慧能染，如何不許？諸染污慧間雜善慧令不清淨說為能染，如貪染心令不解脫，豈必現起與心相應方說能染？然由貪力損縛於心令不解脫，後轉滅彼貪熏習時心便解脫。如是無明染污於慧令不清淨，非慧相應，但由無明損濁於慧。如是分別何理相違，誰復能遮自所分別。然異慧類別有無明，如貪異心，此說為善。有執煩惱皆是無明，此亦應同前理遮遣。若諸煩惱皆是無明，於結等中不應別說，亦不應與見等相應，見等不應自相應故。或亦應說無明染心，若謂此中就差別說，應於染慧不說總名。既許無明別法為體，應說此體其相云何。謂不了知諦實業果。未測何相名不了知？為異了知、為此非有？二俱有過，如無明說。此謂了知所治別法。此復難測，其相是何？此類法爾應如是說。如餘處言：云何為眼？謂清淨色眼識所依。無明亦然，唯可辯用。大德法救說此無明是諸有情恃我類性，異於我慢。類體是何？經言：我今如是知已、如是見已，諸所有愛、諸所有見、諸所有類性、諸我我所執、我慢執、隨眠，斷遍知故無影寂滅，故知類性異於我慢。寧知類性即是無明？不可說為餘煩惱故。豈不可說為餘慢等？若更於此巨細研尋，言論繁雜故應且止。名色何義？色如先辯，今唯辯名。頌曰：
The Treatise states: The sutras speak of ignorance as a fetter, latent tendency, outflow, yoke, torrent, and so forth. It is not the case that the eye and other faculties, or the complete absence of an entity, can be spoken of as fetters and such. Therefore, there is a distinct dharma called ignorance. Just as a bad wife is called "no wife," so should bad wisdom be called ignorance. That [bad wisdom] is not ignorance, for it possesses the nature of a view. All defiled wisdom is called bad wisdom. Within it, because there is a view, it is not ignorance. If so, then wisdom that is not a view should be acknowledged as ignorance. That is not so, for ignorance is associated with views. If ignorance were wisdom, it should not be associated with views, for two wisdom entities cannot be mutually associated. Furthermore, it is said that ignorance defiles wisdom, as the sutra states: "Greed defiles the mind, making it not liberated; ignorance defiles wisdom, making it not pure." Wisdom cannot defile its own entity. Just as greed, being of a different category, can defile the mind, ignorance should also be of a different category from wisdom to be able to defile it. Why not allow this? Defiled wisdom intermingles with wholesome wisdom, making it impure; this is spoken of as defiling. Just as greed defiles the mind, making it not liberated, must it necessarily arise and be associated with the mind to be spoken of as defiling? Rather, it is through the power of greed that the mind is damaged and bound, making it not liberated. Later, when the latent tendencies of that greed are extinguished, the mind becomes liberated. Similarly, ignorance defiles wisdom, making it impure. It is not that ignorance is associated with wisdom; rather, it is due to ignorance that wisdom is damaged and muddied. What principle contradicts such an analysis? Who can refute one's own analysis? However, ignorance is a distinct category separate from wisdom, just as greed is distinct from the mind. This explanation is good. Some hold that all defilements are ignorance. This too should be refuted by the same reasoning as before. If all defilements were ignorance, they should not be separately listed among the fetters and so forth, nor should they be associated with views and the like, for views and such should not be self-associated. Or it should also be said that ignorance defiles the mind. If one argues that this is spoken of in terms of distinctions, then one should not speak of a general name for defiled wisdom. Since it is accepted that ignorance has a distinct dharma as its entity, what is the characteristic of this entity? It is the failure to understand truth, karma, and results. What characteristic is meant by "failure to understand"? Is it different from understanding, or is it the absence thereof? Both have faults, as explained regarding ignorance. This refers to a distinct dharma that is the antidote to understanding. This again is difficult to discern; what is its characteristic? Such dharmas are inherently thus; they should be spoken of as such. As stated elsewhere: "What is the eye? It is the clear form that is the basis for eye-consciousness." Ignorance is likewise; only its function can be described. The Venerable Dharmatrāta says this ignorance is the nature of sentient beings' reliance on a self, a category distinct from pride in self. What is the entity of this category? The sutra states: "Now that I have thus known and thus seen, all craving, all views, all categories of nature, all grasping at self and mine, pride in self, and latent tendencies are cut off, fully understood, and thus without shadow, stilled, extinguished." Therefore, it is known that this category of nature is distinct from pride in self. How can it be known that this category of nature is precisely ignorance? Because it cannot be said to be other defilements. Could it not be said to be other forms of pride and the like? If we delve further into this, examining it in great detail, the discussion will become excessively complex; therefore, we should stop here. What is the meaning of name-and-form? Form has been explained previously; now we will only explain name. The verse says:
名無色四蘊。
Name the four formless aggregates.
論曰：無色四蘊何故稱名？隨所立名根境勢力於義轉變，故說為名。云何隨名勢力轉變？謂隨種種世共立名，於彼彼義轉變詮表，即如牛馬色味等名。此復何緣標以名稱？於彼彼境轉變而緣。又類似名，隨名顯故。有餘師說：四無色蘊，捨此身已轉趣餘生，轉變如名，故標名稱。觸何為義？頌曰：
Discussion: Why are the four formless aggregates called "name"? Because they transform in meaning according to the power of the faculties and objects established by names, they are called "name." How do they transform according to the power of names? It means that according to the various names established by the world, they change and express different meanings, just like the names for cows, horses, colors, tastes, and so on. Why, then, are they labeled as "name"? Because they transform according to those objects and are conditioned by them. Moreover, they are similar to names, as they become manifest through names. Some other masters say: The four formless aggregates, after leaving this body, transfer to another life, transforming like names, hence they are labeled as "name." What is the meaning of "contact"? The verse says:
觸六三和生。
When the six sense organs come into contact with the world, life arises.
論曰：觸有六種，所謂眼觸乃至意觸。此復是何？三和所生，謂根、境、識三和合故有別觸生。且五觸生可三和合，許根境識俱時起故。意根過去、法或未來、意識現在，如何和合？此即名和合，謂因果義成。或同一果故名和合，謂根境識三同順生觸故。諸師於此覺慧不同。有說：三和即名為觸。彼引經證。如契經言：如是三法聚集和合說名為觸。有說：別法與心相應，三和所生說名為觸。彼引經證。經言：云何六六法門？一、六內處；二、六外處；三、六識身；四、六觸身；五、六受身；六、六愛身。此契經中根境識外別說六觸，故觸別有。說即三和名為觸者，釋後所引六六經言，非由別說便有別體。勿受及愛非法處攝無如是失，離愛受觸別有所餘法處體故。汝宗離觸無別有三，可觸及三差別而說，雖有根境不發於識，而無有識不託根境。故已說三，更別說觸便成無用。有餘救言：非諸眼色皆諸眼識因，非諸眼識皆諸眼色果。非因果者別說為三，因果所收總立為觸。說離三和有別觸者，釋前所引如是三法聚集和合名觸。經言我部所誦經文異此，或於因上假說果名，如說諸佛出現樂等。如是展轉更相難釋，言論煩多故應且止。然對法者說有別觸，即前六觸復合為二。頌曰：
The Treatise states: There are six kinds of contact, namely: eye-contact up to mind-contact. What are these? They are produced by the coming together of three factors: namely, when root, object, and consciousness come together, a distinct contact arises. Now, the arising of the five sense-contacts can involve the simultaneous coming together of three factors, as it is accepted that root, object, and consciousness can arise together. But the mind-root is past, its object may be future, and mind-consciousness is present—how can they come together? This is called 'coming together' in the sense that the relationship of cause and effect is established. Or, they are called 'coming together' because they share a common result: namely, the root, object, and consciousness all together give rise to contact. On this point, the teachers have different understandings. Some say: The three coming together is itself called contact. They cite scriptural proof. As the sutra says: "When these three factors gather and come together, it is called contact." Others say: It is a distinct factor associated with the mind, produced by the coming together of three, that is called contact. They cite scriptural proof. The sutra says: "What are the six sets of six? 1) The six internal bases; 2) the six external bases; 3) the six consciousnesses; 4) the six contacts; 5) the six feelings; 6) the six cravings." In this sutra, apart from the root, object, and consciousness, six contacts are separately mentioned; therefore, contact is a distinct entity. Those who say that the three coming together itself is called contact explain the later-cited sutra on the six sets of six by saying that separate mention does not necessarily imply a separate entity. Otherwise, one would have to accept that feeling and craving are not included in the dharmāyatana, which is not the case, for apart from craving and feeling, there remain other entities belonging to the dharmāyatana. In your school, apart from contact, there are no other three; you can speak of contact and the three as distinct. Although there can be a root and object without generating consciousness, there is no consciousness that does not depend on a root and object. Therefore, having already mentioned the three, to separately mention contact again would be redundant. Some others offer a defense: Not every eye and form is a cause for every eye-consciousness, and not every eye-consciousness is an effect of every eye and form. Those that are not in a cause-effect relationship are separately mentioned as the three; those encompassed by cause and effect are collectively established as contact. Those who assert a distinct contact apart from the three coming together explain the earlier-cited sutra which says "when these three factors gather and come together, it is called contact" by saying that the version of the sutra recited by our school differs from this, or that the name of the effect is figuratively applied to the cause, as when one speaks of "the joy of the Buddhas' appearance," etc. Thus, they go back and forth refuting each other's explanations. Since the arguments become numerous and verbose, we should stop here for now. However, the Abhidharma masters assert that there is a distinct contact. Furthermore, the aforementioned six contacts are combined into two categories. The verse says:
五相應有對， 第六俱增語。
The five senses are bound to their objects, the sixth mind is free to conceive.
論曰：眼等五觸說名有對，以有對根為所依故。第六意觸說名增語。所以然者，增語謂名，名是意觸所緣長境，故偏就此名增語觸。如說眼識但能了青不了是青，意識了青亦了是青，故名為長。故有對觸名從所依，增語觸名就所緣立。有說：意識語為增上方於境轉，五識不然，是故意識獨名增語，與此相應名增語觸。故有對觸名從所依，增語觸名就相應立。即前六觸隨別相應復成八種。頌曰：
The Treatise states: The five sense contacts, such as visual contact, are called "contact with resistance" because they rely on sense faculties that encounter resistance. The sixth, mental contact, is called "contact with verbal designation." The reason is this: "verbal designation" refers to names, and names are the extended objects that mental contact engages with. Therefore, it is specifically in this sense that it is called "contact with verbal designation." For example, it is said that visual consciousness can only perceive blue but cannot recognize it as "blue," whereas mental consciousness can both perceive blue and recognize it as "blue." Hence, it is called "extended." Therefore, "contact with resistance" is named based on its supporting faculty, while "contact with verbal designation" is named based on its object. Some say: Mental consciousness relies on language to further engage with objects, while the five sense consciousnesses do not. Therefore, only mental consciousness is called "verbal designation," and the contact associated with it is called "contact with verbal designation." Thus, "contact with resistance" is named based on its supporting faculty, while "contact with verbal designation" is named based on its association. Furthermore, based on their distinct associations, these six types of contact are further divided into eight kinds. The verse states:
明無明非二， 無漏染污餘，
愛恚二相應， 樂等順三受。
Ignorance and enlightenment are not two separate things; The rest are taints and defilements. Love and aversion arise together, And the three feelings—pleasant, painful, and neutral—follow accordingly.
論曰：明無明等相應成三，一明觸、二無明觸、三非明非無明觸。此三如次，應知即是無漏染污餘相應觸。餘謂無漏及染污餘，即有漏善、無覆無記。無明觸中一分數起，依彼復立愛恚二觸，愛恚隨眠共相應故。總攝一切復成三觸：一順樂受觸、二順苦受觸、三順不苦不樂受觸。此三能引樂等受故，或是樂等受所領故，或能為受行相依故，名為順受。如何觸為受所領行？相依行相極似觸，依觸而生故。如是合成十六種觸。受何為義？頌曰：
The Treatise states: The interaction of awareness and ignorance, among others, gives rise to three types of contact: contact with awareness, contact with ignorance, and contact that is neither awareness nor ignorance. These three should be understood, in order, as contact corresponding to the undefiled, the defiled, and the remainder. The remainder refers to what is neither undefiled nor defiled—namely, wholesome actions with defilements and neutral actions without obscuration. Within contact with ignorance, a portion arises repeatedly; based on this, two further types of contact are established: contact with attachment and contact with aversion, because the latent tendencies of attachment and aversion correspond with them. In summary, all contact can be grouped into three categories: contact leading to pleasant feelings, contact leading to painful feelings, and contact leading to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings. These three are called "contact leading to feelings" because they can induce pleasant and other feelings, or are experienced by pleasant and other feelings, or serve as the basis for the activity of feelings. How does contact serve as the basis for the activity experienced by feelings? The activity is extremely similar to contact because it arises dependent on contact. In this way, sixteen types of contact are synthesized. What is the meaning of "feeling"? The verse says:
從此生六受， 五屬身餘心。
From these arise six sensations, five belonging to the body, the rest to the mind.
論曰：從前六觸生於六受，謂眼觸所生受至意觸所生受。六中前五說為身受，依色根故。意觸所生說為心受，但依心故。受生與觸，為後、為俱？毘婆沙師說俱時起，觸受展轉俱有因故。云何二法俱時而生？能生所生義可成立。如何不立？無功能故，於已生法餘法無能。此與立宗義意無別，如言二法俱時而生，能生所生義不成立；於已生法餘法無能，義意同前，重說何用？若爾，便有互相生失。許故非失。我宗許二為俱有因，亦互為果。仁雖許爾，而契經中不許此二互為因果。契經但說：眼觸為緣生眼觸所生受。曾無經說，眼受為緣生眼受所生觸。又此義非理，越能生法故。若法極成能生彼法，此法與彼時別極成。如先種後芽、先乳後酪、先擊後聲、先意後識等，先因後果非不極成。亦有極成同時因果，如眼識等，眼色等俱。四大種俱有所造色，此中亦許前根境緣能發後識。前大造聚生後造色，何理能遮？如影與身，豈非俱有。有說：觸後方有受生，根境為先，次有識起，此三合故即名為觸，第三剎那緣觸生受。若爾，應識非皆有受，諸識亦應非皆是觸。無如是失。因前位觸故，後觸位受生，故諸觸時皆悉有受，所有識體無非是觸。此不應理。何理相違？謂或有時二觸境別，因前受位觸生後觸位受。如何異境受從異境觸生？或應許受此心相應，非與此心同緣一境。既爾，若許有成觸，識是觸無受。於此位前有識有受而體非觸，緣差故然。斯有何過？若爾，便壞十大地法，彼定一切心品恒俱。彼定恒俱依何教立？依本論立。我等但以契經為量，本論非量，壞之何咎？故世尊言：當依經量。或大地法義非要遍諸心。若爾，何名大地法義？謂有三地：一有尋有伺地、二無尋唯伺地、三無尋無伺地。復有三地：一善地、二不善地、三無記地。復有三地：一學地、二無學地、三非學非無學地。若法於前諸地皆有，名大地法。若法唯於諸善地中有，名大善地法。若法唯於諸染地中有，名大煩惱地法。如是等法各隨所應更代而生，非皆並起。餘說如是大不善地法，因誦引來，是今所增益，非本所誦。若於觸後方有受生，經云何釋？如契經說：眼及色為緣生於眼識，三和合觸俱起受想思。但言俱起不說觸俱，此於我宗何違須釋？又於無間亦有俱聲，如契經說：與慈俱行修念覺支。故彼非證。若爾，何故契經中言：是受是想是思是識，如是諸法相雜不離，故無有識離於受等。今應審思，相雜何義？此經復說：諸所受即所思，諸所思即所想，諸所想即所識。未了於此，為約所緣、為約剎那作如是說？於壽與煖俱時起中，亦有如斯相雜言故，例知此說定約剎那。又契經言三和合觸，如何有識而非三和？或是三和而不名觸？故應定許一切識俱悉皆有觸，諸所有觸無不皆與受等俱生。傍論已終，應辯本義。頌曰：
**Discussion:** From the six contacts arise the six feelings: the feeling born of eye-contact, up to the feeling born of mind-contact. Among these six, the first five are called bodily feelings because they depend on the physical sense faculties. The feeling born of mind-contact is called a mental feeling because it depends on the mind alone.
Do feelings arise after contact or simultaneously with it? The masters of the Vibhāṣā say they arise simultaneously, because contact and feeling are mutually causes for each other as coexisting causes. How can two dharmas arise simultaneously? The meaning of "that which produces" and "that which is produced" can be established. How can it not be established? Because there is no function. For a dharma that has already arisen, another dharma has no capacity [to produce it]. This argument is no different in meaning from the thesis. It's like saying, "Two dharmas arise simultaneously; the meaning of 'that which produces' and 'that which is produced' cannot be established." The meaning is the same as before, so why repeat it? If that's the case, then there would be the fault of mutual production. We accept that, so it's not a fault. Our school accepts that the two are coexisting causes and also mutually each other's effect. Even if you accept that, the sūtras do not accept that these two are mutually cause and effect. The sūtra only says: "With eye-contact as condition, arises the feeling born of eye-contact." There is never a sūtra that says, "With eye-feeling as condition, arises the contact born of eye-feeling." Furthermore, this meaning is unreasonable because it goes beyond the capacity of the producing dharma. If a dharma is well-established as producing that dharma, it is well-established that this dharma and that [dharma] have different times. For example, seed first, sprout later; milk first, curd later; striking first, sound later; intention first, consciousness later, etc. Cause first, effect later is well-established. There are also well-established simultaneous causes and effects, such as eye-consciousness, etc., which arise together with the eye and visible form. The four great elements arise together with the derived matter they produce. In this case, it is also accepted that the preceding condition of faculty and object gives rise to the subsequent consciousness. The preceding aggregate of great elements produces the subsequent derived matter. What principle can refute this? Like a shadow and a body, are they not simultaneous? Some say: Feeling arises after contact. First there is the faculty and object, then consciousness arises; the coming together of these three is called contact. In the third moment, feeling arises conditioned by contact. If so, then consciousness should not always have feeling, and all consciousnesses should also not always be contact. There is no such fault. Because of the contact in the preceding moment, the feeling in the subsequent contact moment arises. Therefore, at all times of contact, there is feeling, and all consciousness entities are without exception contact. This is not reasonable. What principle contradicts it? It is said that sometimes two contacts have different objects. Because of the contact in the preceding feeling moment, the feeling in the subsequent contact moment arises. How can a feeling with a different object arise from a contact with a different object? Or one should accept that a feeling is associated with this mind, but does not share the same object with this mind. If so, if one accepts that there is a consciousness that is contact without feeling, then before this moment there was a consciousness with feeling whose entity was not contact, due to a difference in conditions. What fault is there in that? If so, then the ten universal mental factors are invalidated, as they are definitely always concomitant with every mind moment. On what teaching is their definite constant concomitance established? It is established based on the Abhidharma treatise. We only take the sūtras as the standard; the Abhidharma treatise is not the standard, so what fault is there in refuting it? Therefore the World-Honored One said: "One should rely on the sūtra as the standard." Alternatively, the meaning of "universal mental factors" does not necessarily mean they pervade every mind. If so, what is the meaning of "universal mental factors"? It is said there are three levels: 1) the level with investigation and analysis, 2) the level without investigation but with analysis only, 3) the level without investigation or analysis. Also there are three levels: 1) the wholesome level, 2) the unwholesome level, 3) the neutral level. Also there are three levels: 1) the level of a learner, 2) the level of a non-learner, 3) the level that is neither learner nor non-learner. If a dharma exists in all the aforementioned levels, it is called a universal mental factor. If a dharma exists only in the wholesome levels, it is called a universal wholesome mental factor. If a dharma exists only in the defiled levels, it is called a universal defiled mental factor. Such dharmas arise in alternation according to what is appropriate, they do not all arise together. Others say that such "universal unwholesome mental factors" were introduced by a recitation and are an addition made now, not part of the original recitation.
If feeling arises after contact, how is the sūtra explained? As the sūtra says: "With the eye and forms as condition, eye-consciousness arises. The three coming together is contact; together arise feeling, perception, and volition." It only says "together arise," not "together with contact." What contradiction with our school needs to be explained here? Furthermore, the word "together" is also used for sequential [events], as in the sūtra saying: "Cultivating the awakening factor of mindfulness together with loving-kindness." Therefore that is not proof. If so, why does the sūtra say: "This is feeling, this is perception, this is volition, this is consciousness; such dharmas are intermingled, inseparable, therefore there is no consciousness separate from feeling, etc."? Now we should carefully consider, what is the meaning of "intermingled"? This sūtra further says: "What is felt is what is intended; what is intended is what is perceived; what is perceived is what is cognized." It is not clear here whether this is said with respect to the object or with respect to the moment. In the case of life faculty and warmth arising simultaneously, there is also such talk of being "intermingled." By analogy, we know this statement definitely refers to the moment. Also, the sūtra speaks of "the three coming together is contact." How can there be consciousness that is not the three coming together? Or how can there be the three coming together that is not called contact? Therefore, we should definitely accept that all consciousnesses are accompanied by contact, and all contacts are invariably accompanied by feeling, etc.
The digression is now concluded; we should explain the main meaning. The verse says:
此復成十八， 由意近行異。
This further becomes eighteen, due to the variations in mental inclinations.
論曰：於前略說一心受中，由意近行異，復分成十八。應知此復聲，顯乘前起後。此意近行十八云何？謂喜、憂、捨各六近行。此復何緣立為十八？若由自性應但有三，喜憂捨三自性異故。若由相應應唯有一，一切皆與意相應故。若由所緣應但有六，色等六境為所緣故。此成十八，具足由三。於中十五色等近行名不雜緣，境各別故。三法近行皆通二種。意近行名為目何義？傳說喜等意為近緣，於諸境中數遊行故。有說喜等能為近緣，令意於境數遊行故。如何身受非意近行？非唯依意故不名近，由無分別故亦非行。第三靜慮意地樂根，意近行中何故不攝？傳說初界意識相應無樂根故，又無所對苦根所攝意近行故。若唯意地，何故經言：眼見色已，於順喜色起喜近行，廣說如經。依五識身所引意地喜等近行，故作是說。如依眼識引不淨觀，此不淨觀唯意地攝。又彼經言眼見色已乃至廣說，故不應難。若雖非見，乃至觸已而起喜憂捨，亦是意近行。若異此者，在欲界中應無緣色界色等意近行。又在色界應無緣欲香味觸境諸意近行。見色等言隨明了說，見色等已於聲等中起喜憂捨亦意近行，隨無雜亂故作是說，於中建立根境定故。為有色等於喜等三，唯能順生一近行不？有就相續非約所緣。諸意近行中幾欲界繫？欲界意近行幾何所緣？色無色界為問亦爾。頌曰：
The treatise states: In the previous brief explanation of the single mind that experiences, due to the differences in the mental preoccupations, it is further divided into eighteen. It should be understood that the word "復" here indicates continuing from the previous topic to introduce what follows. What are these eighteen mental preoccupations? They are: joy, sorrow, and equanimity, each with six preoccupations. Why are they established as eighteen? If based on their intrinsic nature, there should only be three, because joy, sorrow, and equanimity have distinct intrinsic natures. If based on their association, there should only be one, because all are associated with the mind. If based on their objects, there should only be six, because the objects are the six sense-spheres such as form. They become eighteen by fully encompassing these three aspects. Among them, the fifteen preoccupations with form, etc., are called "unmixed" because their objects are distinct. The three preoccupations with mental objects can be of both kinds. What does the term "mental preoccupation" signify? According to tradition, joy, etc., are the proximate causes for the mind to repeatedly wander among various objects. Some say joy, etc., act as proximate causes, enabling the mind to repeatedly wander among objects. Why are bodily sensations not considered mental preoccupations? Because they do not rely solely on the mind, they are not called "proximate," and because they lack discrimination, they are also not called "wandering." Why is the mental faculty of pleasure in the third meditative absorption not included among the mental preoccupations? According to tradition, in the first realm, mental consciousness is not associated with the pleasure faculty. Also, there is no corresponding sorrow faculty among the mental preoccupations. If they pertain only to the mental sphere, why does the scripture say: "Having seen a form with the eye, one gives rise to a preoccupation with joy regarding a form that is agreeable to joy," and so on as detailed in the scripture? This is stated with reference to the mental preoccupations of joy, etc., in the mental sphere that are induced by the five sense-consciousnesses. Just as the contemplation of impurity is induced by visual consciousness but belongs solely to the mental sphere. Moreover, since the scripture says "having seen a form with the eye," and so on, this should not be questioned. Even if one does not see, but upon hearing, etc., gives rise to joy, sorrow, or equanimity, these are also mental preoccupations. If it were otherwise, in the desire realm there would be no mental preoccupations with objects of the form realm, such as form. Also, in the form realm there would be no mental preoccupations with objects of the desire realm, such as smells and tastes. The terms "see," etc., are used according to what is most evident. Having seen a form, etc., one may give rise to joy, sorrow, or equanimity regarding sounds, etc., which are also mental preoccupations. To avoid confusion, it is stated this way, establishing a definite relationship between faculties and objects. Is there any form, etc., that can only induce one of the three—joy, etc.—as a preoccupation? Yes, based on the continuity of the mental stream, not based on the object. Among the mental preoccupations, how many are bound to the desire realm? How many objects do the desire realm mental preoccupations have? The same questions apply to the form and formless realms. The verse says:
欲緣欲十八， 色十二上三，
二緣欲十二， 八自二無色，
後二緣欲六， 四自一上緣，
初無色近分， 緣色四自一，
四本及三邊， 唯一緣自境。
When desire conditions desire, there are eighteen, Twelve for form, and three for the formless.
Two condition desire, twelve in total, Eight are self-conditioned, two are formless.
The last two condition desire, six in total, Four are self-conditioned, one conditions the higher.
The first formless near-attainment, Conditions form, four are self-conditioned, one.
The four fundamentals and three boundaries, Only condition their own realm.
論曰：欲界所繫具有十八，緣欲界境其數亦然。緣色界境唯有十二，除香味六，彼無境故。緣無色境唯得有三，彼無色等五所緣故。說欲界繫已，當說色界繫。初二靜慮唯有十二，謂除六憂。緣欲界境亦有十二，除香味四，餘八自緣，二緣無色，謂法近行。三四靜慮唯六，謂捨緣欲界，境亦得有六。除香味二，餘四自緣，一緣無色，謂法近行。說色界繫已，當說無色繫。空處近分唯有四種，謂捨但緣色、聲、觸、法。緣第四靜慮，亦具有四種，此就許有別緣者說；若執彼地唯總緣下，但有雜緣法意近行。緣無色界唯一，謂法四根，本地及上三邊唯一，謂法但緣自境，無色根本不緣下故，彼上三邊不緣色故。不緣下義如後當辯。此意近行，通無漏耶？頌曰：
The Treatise states: The eighteen types bound to the desire realm are also the number when their objects are from the desire realm. When their objects are from the form realm, there are only twelve, excluding the six related to smell and taste, as those objects do not exist there. When their objects are from the formless realm, there are only three, as the five objects of form, etc., are absent. Having discussed those bound to the desire realm, we now discuss those bound to the form realm. In the first two meditative absorptions, there are only twelve, excluding the six related to sorrow. When their objects are from the desire realm, there are also twelve, excluding the four related to smell and taste; the remaining eight are directed toward their own realm, while two are directed toward the formless realm, namely, the mental engagement with dharmas. In the third and fourth meditative absorptions, there are only six, namely, the equanimity type. When their objects are from the desire realm, there can also be six, excluding the two related to smell and taste; the remaining four are directed toward their own realm, while one is directed toward the formless realm, namely, the mental engagement with dharmas. Having discussed those bound to the form realm, we now discuss those bound to the formless realm. In the preparatory stage of the sphere of infinite space, there are only four types, namely, the equanimity type, with objects of form, sound, touch, and dharmas. When directed toward the fourth meditative absorption, there are also four types. This is stated from the perspective that allows for distinct objects; if one holds that in that stage, only a general perception of the lower realm exists, then there is only the mixed mental engagement with dharmas. When directed toward the formless realm, there is only one, namely, the mental engagement with dharmas, with the four roots. In the fundamental stage and the three higher stages, there is only one, namely, the mental engagement with dharmas, directed solely toward its own objects, as the fundamental formless stages do not perceive the lower realms, and the three higher stages do not perceive form. The meaning of not perceiving the lower realms will be explained later. Are these mental engagements also unconditioned? The verse states:
十八唯有漏。
論曰：無意近行通無漏者，故言十八唯是有漏。誰成就幾意近行耶？謂生欲界，若未獲得色界善心，成欲一切；初二定八，三四定四；無色界一。所成上界皆不下緣，唯染污故。若已獲得色界善心未離欲貪，成欲一切；初靜慮十，餘說如前。初靜慮中唯成四喜，染不緣下香味境故。捨具成六，未至定中善心得緣香味境故。餘隨此理，如應當知。若生色界，唯成欲界一捨法近行，謂通果心俱。有說如是諸意近行，毘婆沙師隨義而立。然我所見經義有殊。所以者何？非於此地已得離染，可緣此境起意近行，故非有漏喜憂捨三皆近行攝。唯雜染者與意相牽數行所緣是意近行。云何與意相牽數行？或愛或憎、或不擇捨。為對治彼說六恒住，謂見色已不喜不憂，心恒住捨具念正智，廣說乃至知法亦爾。非阿羅漢無有世間緣善法喜，但為遮止雜染近行故作是說。又即喜等為三十六師句，謂為耽嗜出離依別。此句差別，大師說故。耽嗜依者，謂諸染受。出離依者，謂諸善受。如是所說受，有支中應知。義門無量差別，何緣不說所餘有支？頌曰：
Discussion: The "mental engagements" that are not associated with the unconditioned are all considered conditioned. Therefore, the eighteen mental engagements are exclusively conditioned. Who attains how many mental engagements? For beings born in the desire realm, if they have not yet attained the wholesome mind of the form realm, they attain all mental engagements of the desire realm; in the first and second dhyānas, they attain eight; in the third and fourth dhyānas, they attain four; in the formless realm, they attain one. The mental engagements attained in higher realms do not extend downward, as they are solely defiled. If they have already attained the wholesome mind of the form realm but have not yet abandoned desire-attachment, they attain all mental engagements of the desire realm; in the first dhyāna, they attain ten; the rest are as previously explained. In the first dhyāna, they only attain the four types of joy, as defilements do not extend to the objects of smell and taste. They fully attain the six types of equanimity, as the wholesome mind in the preparatory stage can extend to the objects of smell and taste. The rest should be understood accordingly based on this principle. For beings born in the form realm, they only attain one mental engagement of the desire realm, which is the equanimity associated with the mind of fruition. Some say that these mental engagements are established by the Vibhāṣā masters according to their meaning. However, in my view, the meaning of the scriptures differs. Why is this? Because when one has already abandoned defilements in a certain realm, one cannot engage with the objects of that realm through mental engagements. Therefore, not all conditioned joy, sorrow, and equanimity are included in mental engagements. Only those that are defiled and repeatedly engage with objects in connection with the mind are considered mental engagements. What does it mean to repeatedly engage with objects in connection with the mind? It refers to attachment, aversion, or indiscriminate indifference. To counteract these, the six abidings are taught: upon seeing forms, one neither rejoices nor grieves, the mind abides in equanimity with mindfulness and right knowledge, and so on up to knowing dharmas. It is not that Arhats lack worldly joy arising from wholesome dharmas, but this teaching is given to prevent defiled mental engagements. Furthermore, joy and the others are divided into thirty-six categories based on whether they are associated with attachment or renunciation. This distinction is taught by the Great Teacher. Those associated with attachment refer to defiled feelings, while those associated with renunciation refer to wholesome feelings. This explanation of feelings should be understood within the context of the links of dependent origination. The meanings and categories are countless and varied. Why are the other links of dependent origination not discussed? The verse states:
餘已說當說。
論曰：所餘有支，或有已說、或有當說，故此不論。此中識支如先已說，識謂各了別，此即名意處等。其六處支如先已說，彼識依淨色，名眼等五根等。行有二支，業品當說。愛取二支，隨眠品當說。此諸緣起略立為三，謂煩惱、業、異熟果事。應寄外喻，顯別功能。頌曰：
此中說煩惱， 如種復如龍，
如草根樹莖， 及如糠裹米；
業如有糠米， 如草藥如花；
諸異熟果事， 如成熟飲食。
論曰：如何此三種等相似，如從種子芽葉等生？從煩惱生煩惱業事，如龍鎮池水恒不竭。煩惱鎮業生續無窮，如草根未拔苗剪剪還生。未拔煩惱根趣滅滅還起，如從樹莖頻生枝花果。從諸煩惱數起惑業事，如糠裹米能生芽等，非獨能生。或得裹業能感餘生，非獨能感。惑如種等應如是知。如米有糠能生芽等，業有煩惱能招異熟。如諸草藥果熟為後邊，業果熟已更不招異熟。如花於果為生近因，業為近因能生異熟。業如米等，應如是知。如熟飲食但應受用，不可復轉成餘飲食。異熟果事既成熟已，不能更招餘生異熟。若諸異熟復感餘生，餘復感餘應無解脫。事如飲食，應如是知。如是緣起煩惱業事，生生相續不過四有：中、生、本、死，如前已釋。染不染義三界有無，今當略辯。頌曰：
於四種有中， 生有唯染污，
由自地煩惱， 餘三無色三。
論曰：於四有中生有唯染。由何煩惱？自地諸惑。謂此地生，此地一切煩惱染污此地生有。故對法者咸作是言：諸煩惱中無一煩惱於結生位無潤功能。然諸結生唯煩惱力，非由自力現起纏垢。雖此位中心身昧劣，而由數起或近現行引發力故，煩惱現起。應知中有初續剎那亦必染污，猶如生有。然餘三有一一通三，謂本、死、中三，各善染無記。於無色界除中有三，非彼界中有處隔別，為往餘處可立中有。頌中不說欲色二界，故知於中許具四有。有情緣起已廣分別，是諸有情由何而住？頌曰：
有情由食住， 段欲體唯三，
非色不能益， 自根解脫故。
觸思識三食， 有漏通三界，
意成及求生， 食香中有起。
前二益此世， 所依及能依，
後二於當有， 引及起如次。
論曰：經說：世尊自悟一法正覺正說，謂諸有情一切無非由食而住。何等為食？食有四種：一段、二觸、三思、四識。段有二種，謂細及麁。細謂中有食，香為食故。及天劫初食，無變穢故，如油沃砂散入支故。或細污虫嬰兒等食說名為細，翻此為麁。如是段食唯在欲界，離段食貪生上界故。唯欲界繫。香味觸三，一切皆為段食自體，可成段別而飲噉故，謂以口鼻分分受之。光影炎涼如何成食？傳說此語從多為論。又雖非飲噉，而能持身，亦細食所攝，如塗洗等。色亦可成段別飲噉，何緣非食？此不能益自所對根，解脫者故。夫名食者，必先資益自根大種，後乃及餘。飲噉色時，於自根大尚不為益，況能及餘，由彼諸根境各別故。有時見色生喜樂者，緣色觸生，是食非色。又不還者及阿羅漢解脫食貪，雖見種種上妙飲食而無益故。觸謂三和所生諸觸，思謂意業，識謂識蘊，此三唯有漏，通三界皆有。如何食體不通無漏？毘婆沙師作如是釋：能資諸有是其食義，無漏修生為滅諸有。又契經說：食有四種，能令部多有情安住，及能資益諸求生者。無漏不然，故非食體。言部多者，顯已生義，諸趣生已皆謂已生。復說求生為何所目？此目中有，由佛世尊以五種名說中有故。何等為五？一者意成，從意生故，非精血等所有外緣合所成故。二者求生，常喜尋察當生處故。三者食香，身資香食往生處故。四者中有，二趣中間所有蘊故。五者名起，對向當生暫時起故。如契經說：有壞自體起，有壞世間生。起謂中有。又經說：有補特伽羅已斷起結、未斷生結。於此經中廣說四句：離二界貪諸上流者為第一句，中般涅槃為第二句，諸阿羅漢為第三句，除前諸相為第四句。又部多者謂阿羅漢，餘有愛者說名求生。幾食能令部多安住？幾食資益求生有情？毘婆沙師說皆具四。諸有愛者亦由段食為緣資益令招後有，以世尊說四食皆為病癰箭根老死緣故。亦見思食安住現身。世傳有言：昔有一父，時遭飢饉，欲造他方。自既飢羸，二子嬰稚，意欲攜去力所不任，以囊盛灰挂於壁上，慰喻二子云是麨囊。二子希望多時延命，後有人至取囊為開，子見是灰望絕便死。又於大海有諸商人，遭難敗船飲食俱失，遙瞻積沫疑為海岸，意望速至命得延時，至觸知非望絕便死。《集異門足》說：大海中有大眾生，登岸生卵埋於砂內還入海中，母若常思卵便不壞，如其失念卵即敗亡。此不應然，違食義故。豈他思食能持自身？理實應言卵常思母得不爛壞，忘則命終。起念母思在於觸位，諸有漏法皆滋長有。如何世尊說食唯四？雖爾就勝說四無失。謂初二食能益此身所依能依，後之二食能引當有能起當有。言所依者，謂有根身，段食於彼能為資益。言能依者，謂心心所，觸食於彼能為資益。如是二食於已生有資益功能最為殊勝。言當有者，謂未來生，於彼當生思食能引。思食引已，從業所熏識種子力後有得起。如是二食於未生有引起功能最為殊勝。故雖有漏皆滋長有，而就勝能唯說四食。前二如養母，養已生故；後二如生母，生未生故。諸所有段皆是食耶？有段非食，應作四句。第一句者，謂所飲噉為緣損壞諸根大種。第二句者，謂餘三食。第三句者，謂所飲噉為緣資益諸根大種。第四句者，除前諸相。如是觸等隨其所應，一一當知皆有四句。頗有觸等為緣，資益諸根大種而非食耶？有，謂異地無漏觸等。諸有食已捐食者身亦名為食，初資益故。毘婆沙說：食於二時能為食事，俱得名食：一、初食時能除飢渴；二、消化已資根及大。何趣何生各具幾食？五趣四生皆具四食。如何地獄有段食耶？鐵丸洋銅豈非段食？若能為害亦是食者，則與前說四句相違。又《品類足》言：云何為段食？謂能資益諸根大種，廣說乃至識食亦爾。彼說且依能資益者說名為食，故不相違。然地獄中熱鐵丸等，雖於食已能為損害，而能暫時解除飢渴，得食相故亦名為食。又孤地獄段食如人。故五趣中皆有四食。世尊所說：有人能施一百外道離欲仙食，若能施一贍部林中異生者食，其果勝彼。何謂贍部林中異生？有作是釋：所有一切住贍部洲諸有腹者。彼釋非理，說一言故。又於此中有施無量異生者食，理勝以食施少外道離欲仙人，何足為奇挍量歎勝？有言：彼是近佛菩薩。理亦不然，施彼獲福，勝施俱胝阿羅漢故。毘婆沙者說：此異生是已獲得順決擇分。此名與義亦不相應，曾無契經或本論說，得順決擇分居贍部林中，當知彼唯自所分別。後身菩薩居贍部林名彼異生。此說應理，爾時菩薩同離欲仙，故對彼仙挍量歎勝，雖施菩薩福勝無邊。乘前挍量且言勝百，理必應爾。由後世尊除彼異生，還將外道對預流向挍量勝劣。若不爾者，世尊則應將彼異生對預流向。已說有情緣起及住。如先所說壽盡死等，今應正辯。何識現前何受相應有死生等？頌曰：
斷善根與續， 離染退死生，
許唯意識中， 死生唯捨受，
非定無心二， 二無記涅槃。
漸死足臍心， 最後意識滅，
下人天不生， 斷末摩水等。
論曰：斷善續善離界地染，從離染退命終受生，於此六位法爾唯許意識非餘。所說生言應知亦攝初結中有。死生唯許捨受相應，捨相應心不明利故，餘受明利不順死生。又此二時唯散非定，要有心位必非無心。非在定心有死生義，界地別故、加行生故、能攝益故。亦非無心有死生義，以無心位命必無損。若所依身將欲變壞，必定還起屬所依心然後命終，更無餘理。又無心者不能受生，以無因故，離起煩惱無受生故。雖說死有通三性心，然入涅槃唯二無記。若說欲界有捨異熟，彼說欲界入涅槃心亦具威儀異熟無記。若說欲界無捨異熟，彼說欲界入涅槃心但有威儀而無異熟。何故唯無記得入涅槃？無記勢力微順心斷故。於命終位何身分中識最後滅？頓命終者意識身根欻然總滅，若漸死者往下人天。於足齊心如次識滅，謂墮惡趣說名往下，彼識最後於足處滅；若往人趣識滅於臍，若往生天識滅心處。諸阿羅漢說名不生，彼最後心亦心處滅。有餘師說：彼滅在頂，正命終時於足等處身根滅故意識隨滅。臨命終時身根漸滅，至足等處欻然都滅。如以少水置炎石上，漸減漸消一處都盡。又漸命終者，臨命終時多為斷末摩苦受所逼。無有別物名為末摩，然於身中有異支節觸便致死，是謂末摩。若水火風隨一增盛，如利刀刃觸彼末摩，因此便生增上苦受，從斯不久遂致命終。非如斬薪說名為斷，如斷無覺故得斷名。地界何緣無斯斷用？以無第四內災患故。內三災患，謂風熱淡水火風增隨所應起。有說：此似外器三災。此斷末摩天中非有，然諸天子將命終時，先有五種小衰相現：一者衣服嚴具出非愛聲；二者自身光明忽然昧劣；三者於沐浴位水渧著身；四者本性囂馳今滯一境；五者眼本凝寂今數瞬動。此五相現非定當死。復有五種大衰相現：一者衣染埃塵；二者花鬘萎悴；三者兩腋汗出；四者臭氣入身；五者不樂本座。此五相現必定當死。世尊於此有情世間生住沒中建立三聚。何謂三聚？頌曰：
正邪不定聚， 聖造無間餘。
論曰：一正性定聚、二邪性定聚、三不定性聚。何名正性？謂契經言：貪無餘斷，瞋無餘斷，癡無餘斷。一切煩惱皆無餘斷，是名正性。定者謂聖，聖謂已有無漏道生，遠諸惡法故名為聖，獲得畢竟離繫得故。定盡煩惱，故名正定。諸已獲得順解脫分者，亦定得涅槃，何非正定？彼後或墮邪定聚故。又得涅槃時未定故，非如預流者極七返有等。又彼未能捨邪性故，不名正定。何名邪性？謂諸地獄、傍生、餓鬼，是名邪性。定謂無間，造無間者必墮地獄，故名邪定。正邪定餘，名不定性。彼待二緣，可成二故。
說一切有部俱舍論卷第十