---
title: "阿毘達磨順正理論 · 1 一"
description: "阿毘達磨順正理論是印度佛教论师众贤尊者所造的重要论典，由唐代高僧玄奘大师译成中文。该论属于说一切有部阿毘达磨论典体系，成书于公元5世纪左右，主要针对经量部观点进行辩驳，系统阐述有部教义。内容涵盖诸法实有、三世实有等核心理论，详细分析心法、色法等法相，论证有部主张的合理性。作为说一切有部晚期代表作，该论在部派佛教发展中具有承前启后的地位，是研究部派佛教思想的重要文献，也是理解大乘佛教兴起背景的关键著作之一。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcx3txa605jvkz04kz2kk2wz"
---

### 辯隨眠品第五之一

> Chapter 5, Part 1: Analysis of the Latent Defilements

廣辯諸業并決擇已。諸契經中說感有處，皆言諸業能為引因。然見世間有離染者，雖亦造善身語意業，而無功能招後有果。故於感有，業應非因。業獨為因非我所許，要隨眠助方有感能，非離隨眠業獨能感，故緣起教初說隨眠。此復何因？隨眠有幾？頌曰：

隨眠諸有本， 此差別有六，謂貪瞋亦慢、 無明見及疑。

論曰：由此隨眠是諸有本，故業離此無感有能。何故隨眠能為有本？諸煩惱現起，為十六事故。一、堅固根本令得堅牢，對治遠故。煩惱根本謂煩惱得。二、生依麁重，能辯所依中無堪任性故。三、建立相續，能數令餘連續起故。四、修治自田，令所依止順彼住故。五、憎背功德，性相能違諸功德故。六、為厭訶本，發智所厭訶身語意業故。七、引毒等流，能引如自隨煩惱故。八、擁解脫路，棄背親近正說者故。九、能發業有，發起能招後有業故。十、攝自資糧，能數數攝起非理作意故。十一、迷於所緣，能害自身正覺慧故。十二、植眾苦種，能生一切生死苦故。十三、將導識流，於後有所緣能引發識故。十四、違越善品，令諸善法皆退失故。十五、廣繫縛義，令不能越自界自地，以能長養染污界故。十六、攝世非愛諸增上果，因此外物皆衰變故。由是隨眠能為有本，故業因此有感有能。雖離染者亦造善業，而無勢力能招後有，是故智者應勤精進，思擇隨眠速令除滅。以何門義思擇隨眠？謂觀隨眠此見所斷、此修所斷，此唯一部、此二此四、此通五部，此是遍行、此非遍行，此自界遍、此他界遍，此有漏緣、此無漏緣，此有為緣、此無為緣，此云何起、云何隨增，此由遍知所緣故斷、此由斷滅所緣故斷、此由永害助伴故斷、此由清淨相續故斷，此與彼相應、此與彼不相應，此斷已可退、此斷已不可退，此有非愛異熟、此全無異熟，此是彼等無間、此是彼所緣，此因所緣斷、此因所緣不斷，此體雖已斷而所緣故縛，此於定地無容得有，此非世間治道所滅，此唯意識身、此通六識身，此能等起身語二業，此能斷善根、此能續善根，此是見性、此非見性，此唯九品斷、此唯一品斷、此一品斷或九品斷，此由彼故成就、此由彼故不成就，此由彼故相應、此由彼故不相應，此於彼位容有現行、此雖未斷而不現行，此唯在欲界斷、此亦在上界斷，有成就此果、有不成就此果，此同對治、此別對治。以如是等眾多義門，應善思擇諸隨眠相。如是善知隨眠相已，方能決定除滅隨眠，亦能為他無倒顯說，自他相續善品更生，能速了知遣除方便。是故若欲利樂自他，應於隨眠如是思擇。隨眠差別略有六種，謂貪、瞋、慢、無明、見、疑。經主於此作如是釋，頌說亦言意顯慢等亦由貪力於境隨增。謂契經言：因愛生恚。如瞋由貪力於境隨增，慢等亦由貪，故復言亦。此釋無理，非文意故。謂此本為標數列名，不明此因彼於境隨增義。今詳亦字為滿句言，若必欲令此有別義，更為方便作無過釋，謂瞋如貪雖有多類，而可總說為一隨眠。慢等亦然，故復言亦。或此為顯如貪與瞋行相不同，是故別立。如是慢等行相雖同，餘義有殊，故亦別立。及聲為顯釋據相違，或顯總攝隨眠類盡。若諸隨眠數唯有六，何緣經說有七隨眠？頌曰：

> Treatise says: Because these latent tendencies are the root of all existence, karma has no power to produce rebirth without them. Why are latent tendencies the root of existence? Because when afflictions manifest, they do so for sixteen reasons: 1. They solidify the root, making it firm and hard to counter with antidotes. The root of afflictions refers to the acquisition of afflictions. 2. They create a foundation of coarseness, producing an unfitness in the mind’s basis. 3. They establish continuity, repeatedly causing subsequent afflictions to arise. 4. They cultivate their own field, making the mind-base conform to their presence. 5. They turn away from virtues, having a nature that opposes all good qualities. 6. They become the basis for aversion and reproach, giving rise to bodily, verbal, and mental actions that wisdom condemns. 7. They lead to the outflow of poison, producing secondary afflictions like themselves. 8. They block the path to liberation, turning one away from and abandoning those who teach the truth. 9. They generate karmic existence, initiating deeds that lead to future rebirth. 10. They collect their own resources, repeatedly gathering irrational thoughts. 11. They confuse their objects, harming one’s own correct understanding. 12. They plant seeds of suffering, giving birth to all the pain of samsara. 13. They steer the stream of consciousness, directing it toward objects in future existence. 14. They go against good qualities, causing all virtues to decline. 15. They create vast bondage, preventing one from transcending one’s own realm and level, while nurturing the defiled realm. 16. They yield unfavorable powerful results, causing external things to decay. Thus, latent tendencies are the root of existence, and karma gains its power to produce rebirth through them. Although those free from defilement also create good karma, it lacks the power to bring about future existence. Therefore, the wise should diligently and energetically reflect on and eliminate these latent tendencies. By what approach should one reflect on latent tendencies? One should observe: This latent tendency is eliminated by seeing; this by cultivation; this belongs to one category; this to two; this to four; this to five categories; this is pervasive; this is not pervasive; this pervades its own realm; this pervades other realms; this has objects that are tainted; this has objects that are untarnished; this has conditioned objects; this has unconditioned objects; how does it arise; how does it increase; this is eliminated by completely understanding its object; this is eliminated by extinguishing its object; this is eliminated by permanently destroying its companions; this is eliminated by purifying the mental continuum; this is associated with that; this is not associated with that; once eliminated, this can regress; once eliminated, this cannot regress; this has undesirable results; this has no results at all; this is the immediate condition for that; this is the object of that; this is eliminated due to its object; this is not eliminated due to its object; although this entity has been eliminated, it is still bound by its object; this cannot exist in a state of meditative absorption; this cannot be destroyed by mundane paths of cultivation; this belongs only to the mental consciousness; this pervades all six types of consciousness; this can activate bodily and verbal actions; this can cut off good roots; this can restore good roots; this is a view in nature; this is not a view in nature; this is eliminated in nine stages; this is eliminated in one stage; this is eliminated in one stage or nine stages; because of that, this is accomplished; because of that, this is not accomplished; because of that, this is associated; because of that, this is not associated; in that state, this can manifest; although not eliminated, this does not manifest; this is eliminated only in the desire realm; this is also eliminated in higher realms; some accomplish its result; some do not; this is a common antidote; this is a specific antidote. Through such numerous approaches, one should wisely reflect on the characteristics of latent tendencies. Only after properly understanding the nature of latent tendencies can one decisively eliminate them. One can also explain them correctly to others, allowing the good qualities in oneself and others to arise anew, and quickly understand the methods for their removal. Therefore, if one wishes to benefit oneself and others, one should reflect on latent tendencies in this way. The categories of latent tendencies are six in brief: attachment, aversion, pride, ignorance, views, and doubt. The Master of the Treatise \[Vasubandhu\] explains this in the verse, saying: The word “also” indicates that pride and others also increase in their objects due to the power of attachment. The sutra says: “From craving arises anger.” Just as anger increases in its object due to the power of attachment, so too pride and others, therefore the word “also” is used. This explanation is unreasonable, as it is not the meaning of the text. The passage simply enumerates the names and lists the numbers; it does not clarify this causal relationship of increase due to another. Now, the word “also” is merely a filler for the verse. If one insists it has another meaning, a better, faultless explanation is: Anger, like attachment, has many types, yet it can be summarized as one latent tendency. Similarly, pride and others, therefore the word “also” is used. Alternatively, this shows that just as attachment and anger have different modes of operation and are thus listed separately, so too pride and others, although similar in mode, differ in other aspects, and are therefore also listed separately. The conjunction “and” indicates a difference in explanation, or it shows that all latent tendencies are included. If the number of latent tendencies is only six, why does the scripture speak of seven? The verse says:

六由貪異七， 有貪上二界，於內門轉故， 為遮解脫想。

論曰：即前所說六隨眠中分貪為二，故經說七。何等為七？一欲貪隨眠、二瞋隨眠、三有貪隨眠、四慢隨眠、五無明隨眠、六見隨眠、七疑隨眠。欲貪隨眠依何義釋？為欲貪體即是隨眠、為是欲貪之隨眠義？於餘六義，徵問亦爾。經主於此作是釋言：此是欲貪之隨眠義。然隨眠體非心相應、非不相應，無別物故。煩惱睡位說名隨眠，於覺位中即名纏故。何名為睡？謂不現行種子隨逐。何名為覺？謂諸煩惱現起纏心。何等名為煩惱種子？謂自體上差別功能，從煩惱生、能生煩惱，如念種子是證智生、能生當念功能差別，又如芽等有前果生、能生後果功能差別。今詳彼釋，於理不然，自許隨眠離諸煩惱無別物故。不染污法為煩惱體，理不成故，不可說為睡隨眠體，故無少物名睡隨眠。又若隨眠是煩惱種，離諸煩惱無別有物，則不應說謂自體上差別功能，從煩惱生、能生煩惱，名煩惱種。又彼所執煩惱功能，若是煩惱以生為性，則不可說此睡煩惱離覺煩惱無別有物。若非煩惱以生為性，如是生性豈非別物？又不應說煩惱睡位說名隨眠，若此功能即是煩惱亦非煩惱，如是言義曾所未聞。若此功能非煩惱性亦非餘性而說是生，此極希有，無體而許，是現在故。非無體法可得說言從煩惱生、能生煩惱。又彼所立宗因相違。所以者何？謂彼所說然隨眠體非心相應非不相應，無別物故。今應責彼無別物言，為離覺時諸纏自體、為離睡位所依自體、為離異二第三聚法無別物耶？然皆非理，彼法非此品類性故，又此離彼無別體故。又離相應不相應外，應別有一違二法生，然此第三必不可得，故彼所說但有虛言。又彼初言然隨眠體非心相應非不相應，此言誠實都無體故，後不應說差別功能從煩惱生能生煩惱，以無體法非因果故。又彼此中據何別理，唯執煩惱不現行位種子隨逐說名隨眠，非餘法種亦立斯號？如彼所執，亦有心等差別功能從心等生能生心等名為種子，何不亦說心等隨眠？上座此中立多因證，謂隨眠者，是諸有情相續所持煩惱類故，不由功力恒隨逐故，由遍知彼息眾苦故，觀彼速能依對治故，智者恒觀為病性故。如是所立皆非證因，許有情身中具五蘊類故，或且彼許有業類故，心等功能不由功力亦恒隨故，契經中言遍知諸法息眾苦故。若觀現行纏過失者，彼最能速，依對治故。經言：有智應常觀察五種取蘊為病性故。誰有鑒者於彼所立證隨眠因心能生喜？又隨眠體於自相續既恒隨逐，何非現行？以現行名目現在故。由此經主惡立隨眠。又所立喻，如念種子是證智生能生當念功能差別，亦不相似。以我宗言念種子者，即於證智後，初重緣實念，從先證智俱起念生，能生後時憶智俱念。此顯即念前後相引，為能赴感差別功能，彼自體俱生，無別實煩惱從前纏起能生後纏可名隨眠煩惱種子，故喻於法相去極遙。由此應知彼第二喻，於所況法亦無證能。謂芽等中有實色等，從前果位實色等生，生後果時實色等法。彼宗所立煩惱隨眠差別功能無如是事。又無芽等同類相續因果俱時，有自體中煩惱種子與纏俱義，則不應計於自體中煩惱功能，從前已滅諸煩惱起。猶如芽等從前果生功能差別。如斯乃是食米臍宗，豈得引來摸託聖旨？惡說法者妄所執故。況經主論劣甚彼宗，謂彼宗中許有別法說名為行，是智果因。然經主宗無別實物名為種子，如何說是煩惱果因？故為甚劣。上座於此謂佛世尊自說諸纏與隨眠異，謂諸煩惱現起名纏，以能現前縛相續故；煩惱隨界說名隨眠，因性恒隨而眠伏故。以契經說：幼稚童子嬰孩眠病，雖無染欲而有欲貪隨眠隨增。此唯說有諸隨眠性。又說一類於多時中為欲貪纏纏心而住。此文唯說有煩惱纏。又說一類非於多時為欲貪纏纏心而住。設心暫爾起欲貪纏，尋如實知出離方便，彼由此故於欲貪纏能正遣除并隨眠斷。此文通說纏及隨眠。由此故知，現起煩惱煩惱隨界名纏隨眠。若隨眠聲目煩惱得，此不應理，曾無說故。又已除遣別有得故。如是隨眠以何為體？若彼隨眠以彼為體，是隨彼法功能性故。或此通用四蘊為體，功能隨逐心心所故。此相應性亦不相應，如諸心所，然其自體不可說故而不記別。遣此多同破經主義，再詳仍有麁過未除。且彼敘前宗，隨眠聲目得，便作是斥，此不應理。復辨因言，曾無說故。又已除遣，別有得故。此因無能，隨界同故。謂曾無處說隨界名隨眠。不說雖同，而許得理勝，以契經說并隨眠斷，故非無實體法可與有俱斷。由此已遣已遣得言，離得說何為隨眠性，而說遣纏位并隨眠斷耶？非經部師能定顯示此隨眠性是有可斷又非隨眠體。有說：隨眠聲故，隨眠聲目得無失。謂佛但說有七隨眠，而隨眠聲有處說色，如契經說：有色隨眠若覺若思便隨增故。如是隨眠得雖非隨眠，而說隨眠聲，理亦為善。又彼所釋前後相違，許貪等言說隨眠故。謂彼先釋貪等非隨眠，後釋經言隨眠即貪等。又審思擇上座所宗，纏與隨眠斷俱非理，是故應捨。隨眠異纏俱非理因，如後當辯。今引違彼前所引經，謂有經言：汝今何故喬答摩所修梵行耶？為求斷故。求斷何法？斷貪瞋癡及三結等。此中不別說斷隨眠。上座此中作如是釋：此中貪等即是隨眠。豈不前言并隨眠者，是隨眠得，非目隨眠？不爾，二經應相違害。曾無說故，已顯非理。非經部宗經有斷義，心相應故，去來無故，非隨眠斷故纏後不生名斷。經說并斷言，顯二俱時斷故。又此經說纏勝隨眠，先說遣纏并隨眠故。不爾應說隨眠并纏。若斷隨眠纏方斷者，則隨眠勝，理應先說。又隨眠未斷，纏容有不生，故非不生即名為斷，或纏不生位即得斷名。非隨眠斷故纏方名斷，或應隨眠斷纏方不生，非於未斷時有不生理。彼隨眠體亦無斷義，無別物故，如空花等。又彼所說，若彼隨眠以彼為體，是隨彼法功能性故。此亦非善，若欲貪纏所引隨眠即欲貪者，學心應與欲貪體一，與彼隨眠無別體故。學心是學，諸欲貪纏非學、無學，如何可說若彼隨眠以彼為體？又隨眠位，諸欲貪纏已滅無體，如何可說有欲貪隨眠以欲貪為體？故彼所說有言無義。又彼所言，或此通用四蘊為體，功能隨逐心心所故。亦不應理，欲貪隨眠體無差別。執差別法以為自體，非觀理者生喜處故。又受想識欲貪所隨，即說名為欲貪自體，亦非鑒者生喜處故。又彼所說，此相應性亦不相應，如諸心所。彼言如有不識槃豆時縛迦花拘枳羅鳥。有作是問：拘枳羅鳥其色如何？答言：鮮白，正似槃豆時縛迦花。曾無處說，亦無理證，諸心所體是不相應，寧說隨眠如諸心所是相應性亦不相應？若作是言：心所自體異類行相則不相應，所許隨眠與隨眠體異類行相既得相應，則不應言諸隨眠體如諸心所亦不相應。又不應許諸心所法有不相應，非待相應方建立有不相應故。又彼所言，隨眠自體不可說故而不記別。誠如所言，彼宗隨眠猶如馬角不可說故。以要言之，彼宗所執多分無有實體可記，欲於佛教求正解者，不應習近如是論師，以聰慧人習彼論者，所有覺慧皆漸昧劣，彼論所說多不定故、前後義文互相違故、不任詰故、越聖教故。對法諸師咸作是說：欲貪等體即是隨眠，如契經言：若觸樂受便生欣悅。慶慰耽著堅執而住，即於樂受有貪隨眠。此中隨眠聲，即說欣悅等。經主此中作如是釋：經但說有，不言爾時即有隨眠，何所違害？於何時有？於彼睡時，或假於因立隨眠想。此釋非理，爾時隨眠說現有聲，理不成故。謂非正起貪纏剎那，有貪隨眠可說現有，即於樂受有貪隨眠，言顯樂受中現有隨眠故。又隨眠自體應不可知故，謂經所說有隨眠聲，若有性俱、若即有性，於無體法理俱不成，無非有俱及有性故。又經但說有隨眠言，寧知非爾時，於餘時方有？有謂有體，是現有義，如契經說：於諸欲中若有欲貪，心被縛住，乃至廣說。又如經說：有諸有情於可愛境有欲有貪，乃至廣說。豈亦執此有及縛言，非於爾時，餘時有縛？又如經說：此無故彼無。豈亦可言是餘時無義？故經主釋，定為非理。由此已遣於因假立。謂經但說有隨眠言，寧知說因非隨眠體？又隨眠體爾時無故，不應於有立非有名，故知隨眠即欲貪等，於自相續隨增眠故。然我今釋大母經中欲貪隨眠即欲貪體，非此意辯諸隨眠得，欲貪隨眠所隨增者是隨縛義。如何隨縛非由自體？由起得故。如強怨敵雖住遠方，密遣使隨伺求瑕隙。故本論釋總隨眠名。謂恒隨行及恒隨縛，此說起得非顯得體。又即彼經言并隨眠斷者，顯欲貪纏無餘盡義。謂斷八品修所斷時，一品隨眠猶能隨縛，為顯體斷說正遣除并隨眠斷，言顯隨縛皆盡。如契經說：於此所生無量種類惡不善法，無餘永滅并隨縛斷。此意亦顯并隨眠滅，是故隨眠即欲貪等、非隨界等，其理善成。分別論師作如是說：諸隨眠體是不相應，不覺不思有隨眠故，謂契經說：不覺不思亦為隨眠隨增隨縛。又道煩惱應俱時故，謂聖道起與心相應，若斷與心相應煩惱，則應聖道有煩惱俱。又應非無學，亦無煩惱故，謂執隨眠心相應者，異生有學善無記心現在前時應無煩惱。然非所許，故知隨眠是不相應行蘊所攝。此可破經部，非預我宗，我宗許去來有實體故。謂雖現在不覺不思，而為去來覺思所引，諸隨眠體與心相應，實相隨眠隨增隨縛。乃至未斷覺思等前，於相續中恒現起得，隨增隨縛曾無間斷。由此亦無道惑俱失，亦無非無學有無煩惱過，以煩惱得非煩惱故，由此去來煩惱縛故。如汝宗聖者現起煩惱時，無煩惱道俱及成異生過；我宗有學起聖道時，無道煩惱俱及無煩惱失，又何用執此不相應？以能為因生諸纏故。此不應理，曾無說故。佛說煩惱，但以無明相不律儀，非理作意邪分別等為因故生，不說隨眠為因故起，然分別論及經部師妄執隨眠為纏因性。又此所計有太過失，謂若隨眠為纏因故，執隨眠體是不相應。經說無明因謂非理作意，此非理作意應是不相應。此不許然，彼云何爾？又隨眠體若許相應，可能為纏隨眠因性，非餘妄計不相應者，以契經說：諸有苾芻於彼彼事中，若多起尋伺，由此由此心便沈著。又如是理世現可知，以下欲貪先數現起，後便數起上品欲貪。又若隨眠非相應性，唯此能作貪等纏因，未離欲貪諸有情類若遇境界纏起應同，以現生因無差別故。既不許爾，故執隨眠與纏為因，定為橫計。然隨眠體定是相應，以經說隨眠為歡悅等故。謂前所引契經中說，若觸樂受生歡悅等，即於樂受有貪隨眠，非不相應名歡悅等。又經說隨眠映蔽心等，故謂契經說貪映蔽心，由此便能行身語意惡行。若隨眠體是不相應，應一切時造諸惡行。又契經說心受貪染，若隨眠體是不相應，應不染心或應恒染。若謂所引皆是諸纏，此中並無隨眠聲故。如何不謂皆是隨眠？以於此中無纏聲故。又彼所釋違害自宗，若無隨眠聲即執為纏者，如契經說：無明為因生貪瞋癡。亦應執纏為因生纏，非隨眠力。是則違害先所立宗，隨眠為因生諸纏義。又隨眠體若不相應，彼與善心為相違不？若相違者，則諸善心應畢竟不生，隨眠恒有故。不相違者，則諸隨眠應不染惱心。然經說染惱，如契經說：貪染惱心令不解脫，無明染慧令不清淨。若謂貪染惱非貪隨眠，以何理為因證知如是？如貪染為性能染惱心，如是貪隨眠亦染為性，如何不說能染惱心？又如愛結，體即是愛，能染惱心；應貪隨眠體即是貪，亦能染惱。或彼應辨差別因緣，由何愛結是相應性，貪隨眠體是不相應？佛觀有情意樂差別，於諸煩惱立種種名，如一欲貪說名欲漏、欲取、欲扼、欲貪隨眠、欲瀑流貪、欲蓋、愛結等種種名。於一欲貪差別名內，若隨眠體是不相應，執是欲貪之隨眠者，則欲漏等應不相應，亦應執為欲之漏等。若欲漏等非不相應，應許隨眠是相應法，等是欲貪名差別故。由此理證，欲貪隨眠體即欲貪，能為染惱。以契經說貪染惱心令不解脫，故不可執隨眠恒有是不相應，以諸善心容有起位，故隨眠體定是相應。經主此中先敘尊者法勝所說，以諸隨眠染惱心故、覆障心故、能違善故，非不相應。後即斥言：此皆非證，許隨眠體是不相應，不許隨眠為上三事，但許三事是纏所為。此都未詳彼大德意。彼大德意如我先辯，若謂隨眠如煩惱得，體雖恒有不障善心，此亦不然，隨眠煩惱差別名體曾無說故。且分別論執隨眠體是不相應，可少有用，彼宗非撥過去未來，勿煩惱生無有因故。然犢子部信有去來，執有隨眠非相應法，如是所執極為無用。如彼論言：諸欲貪纏一切皆是欲貪隨眠，有欲貪隨眠非欲貪纏，謂不相應行欲貪隨眠。何緣彼部作如是執？以經論文俱可得故，釋彼一切皆如前說。若但如文而取義者，如契經說有色隨眠，此文亦應不別觀察，解釋理趣如文而取，則隨眠體非唯可執通相應性及不相應，亦應執通有色無色、有見無見等種種差別門。又彼何緣憎背諸得？若信有得，具能釋通諸聖教中幽隱文義。諸邪執類，不能如實設難彈斥信有得宗。執不相應隨眠論者，常為無量過難所隨，不能釋通聖教文義，而固方便背正執邪，未審蘊何在心故爾？何勞徵問，以諸世間得及前因無始皆等，而現見有唯貪猛利，廣說乃至，有雜行者非無別因有如是事，故應由別有不相應隨眠。此亦不然，若信實有去來二世，雖不別立不相應行名為隨眠，貪猛利等皆得成就。謂由近遠二同類因境等別緣資助覺發，令其引果勢力別故。且止廣諍。如契經言：有貪隨眠此何為體？色無色愛。佛說有貪，此名何因唯於彼立？彼貪多託內門轉故。謂欲界貪多於欲境外門而轉，不名有貪；上二界貪多於定境內門而轉，故名有貪。又由有人於色無色起解脫想，為遮彼故。謂上二界有求解脫，妄想為先得生於彼，故有計彼為真解脫，佛為遮其真解脫想，故於上界立以有名，貪二界貪立有貪想。夫言有者是生身義，此則顯示欲求解脫，於一切有不應希求。經主於斯復作是釋：此中自體立以有名，彼諸有情多於等至及所依止深生味著，故說彼唯味著自體非味著境，離欲貪故，由此唯彼立有貪名。此釋與前義有何別？謂前已說上二界貪多於定境內門而轉，又說有人於色無色生身有境起解脫想，則為已說定及生身皆得有名俱自體故。詳經主釋，義不異前，但搆浮詞似有少異。上座說有二類隨眠，一唯欲纏、二通三界。自興疑問，豈不有貪有論說言唯上二界，都無聖教於色無色偏說有聲，故難依信。然於處處諸聖教中，皆以有聲通說三界，豈不於境亦說有聲，欲貪隨眠不應別立？此難非理，轉有異故。謂諸欲貪於外門轉，內門轉者說名有貪。又如耽境與耽有異，所引隨眠差別亦爾。又緣境界緣生身貪，對治不同，故別立二。又必損伏欲貪及瞋，外仙方能入色無色，故欲貪體非即有貪，以彼有情緣自相續，我愛隨逐恒無斷故。上座於斯極為惡立隨眠差別，以欲貪聲容說一切欲界貪故。欲界生身亦欲界攝，如何緣彼貪非欲貪？如說色貪非唯緣色，總說一切緣色界貪；如是欲貪非唯緣欲，總說一切緣欲界貪。上座所持契經亦說：若緣欲界起染起貪、起阿賴耶、起尼延底、起諸耽著，是欲貪相。故執有貪通三界者，非為善執。又非佛說唯通三界可說有聲。所以者何？有聲或說一界少分、二界少分、三界少分。如《七有經》極七有等，如應配釋。故此所說欲貪隨眠，通攝一切欲界貪盡，餘二界愛總名有貪。立名因緣，如先已辨。若唯緣內貪名有貪，則色界中色聲觸愛非緣內起應非有貪，則諸隨眠應立有八。又言有者，不唯生身，以契經中說業有、中有故，如欲有聲兼說欲境。如是欲界緣生身貪，亦是欲貪隨眠所攝。是故一切欲界繫貪，皆以欲貪隨眠聲說。或於欲境亦說有聲，欲貪隨眠別說無用，言轉異故。理亦不然，說多分言，容可爾故。謂約多分理則可然，以欲界貪多外門轉，色無色愛多於內門，非執欲貪唯緣外起，唯緣內起方名有貪，可說二貪轉異故別。或彼應許色無色貪一向無緣外門轉者。又諸耽境即是耽有，以諸境界亦名有故。或諸耽有即是耽境，諸有亦為境界攝故。由此所言又如耽境與耽有異，非為善說。又彼所說由境身貪對治不同別立二者，此言對治，為別為通？若謂此言約別對治，即境界貪應分多種，謂色聲等諸境界貪，制伏對治各有異故。若謂此言約通對治，此二對治有異有同，如何定言對治有異？或色無色二界中貪治有不同，應亦分二。又言損伏欲貪及瞋，外仙方能入色無色，故欲貪體非即有貪，以彼有情緣自相續，我愛隨逐恒無斷者。此言極與聖教理違，唯不現行名為損伏。若欲界繫緣生身貪，亦名有貪亦名我愛。若此我愛恒隨現行，彼定無容入色無色。若不損伏下生身貪，而諸外仙容入上地，則不應說伏欲貪瞋，外仙方能入色無色。若謂現起欲境貪瞋，能障外仙入色無色，非欲界繫緣生身貪能障外仙，此有何理？厭下身境方生上故。雖彼復言：豈不乃至阿羅漢向住欲界者，於欲界身有我慢愛必無是事。或何不許阿羅漢果亦有是事？若離欲界染不斷欲界貪，離有頂染時亦應無斷理，由彼於此非對治故。或應一切下地煩惱與有頂染俱時斷滅，修前治道便為無用。或應說彼差別因緣，等欲界貪斷有漸頓。若謂此證由《安隱經》，不爾，不了彼經義故。謂彼具壽已見諦理，依修所斷欲界所繫我愛我慢，故作是言我色等中不隨執我，然於如是五取蘊中有我慢愛隨眠未斷。謂此煩惱隨身見行，身見斷故此不現起，然猶未永斷，未得對治故。作如是釋，何所相違？有所相違，謂彼經說，佛為彼說此法門時，具壽安隱成阿羅漢，諸漏永盡心善解脫。由此知彼先是不還，曾已進修阿羅漢向，於出觀位作如是言：我色等中，乃至廣說，佛為說法。經但言成阿羅漢果，不言餘故。此不成證，彼契經中偏舉所得最勝果故，如拊掌喻契經等說。非諸聖者作是尋思：我我似何，乃至廣說，世尊方便開悟其心。經但言成阿羅漢果，謂經說彼悟佛所言，成阿羅漢心善解脫，非說異生聞法頓證阿羅漢果。作是說者，偏舉最勝，此亦應然。或彼契經約取蘊類作如是說，然於如是五取蘊中，有我慢愛隨眠未斷，理實但有上取蘊中我慢我愛。自稱釋子，必不應言已離欲貪，猶有欲界我慢我愛隨眠未斷，況言此二恒隨現行。是故有貪唯色無色，非於欲界，其理極成。既說有貪在上二界，義准欲界貪名欲貪，故於頌中不別顯示。

## 說一切有部順正理論卷第四十五

> Sarvāstivāda Nyāyānusāra, Volume 45